And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. John 8:32
Susan G. Maurer, ESQUIRE, serves as both the “solicitor” and Title IV-D attorney in Lehigh County. 45 CFR – Child Support Enforcement Program [federal law] requires state domestic relations sections to provide certain plaintiffs with a Title IV-D attorney. It is also TRUE that domestic relations [a subsection of the court] may retain a “solicitor”, a de facto officer of the local judiciary. However, case law prohibits the same person from fulfilling both roles. This was brought to the attention of Lehigh County judges, to no avail.
The presence of an “outside” attorney adds the appearance of legitimacy to court proceedings. When that attorney is a solicitor, the appearance of impartiality of the court is compromised. See Canon 2, Code of Judicial Conduct. For that reason, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court prohibits a solicitor from representing clients before the same court where s/he practices on behalf of the government. Horn v. Hilltown Twp., 461 Pa. 745 (1975).
Susan G. Maurer earns her nomination to the PACOURTINJUSTICE Hall of Shame for numerous and egregious violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, her oath of office, and professional integrity. Maurer is identified as one of four individuals who had “custody” of an audio tape of a court hearing prior to being “transcribed”. See Reichley. She is involved in nearly every “Lehigh County” case published on this site. Evidence that Susan G. Maurer violates the Rules of Professional Conduct may be found in each case. See JUDICIAL ATROCITIES cases.
Maurer is an integral member of the corrupt “family” court in Lehigh County, Penna. As solicitor, she provides legal counsel to domestic relations. Her participation in support hearings deprives the defendant of due process and undermines the court’s contention of impartiality. Consistency of court rulings permits a reasonable inference of collaboration and collusion between Maurer and the court to reach pre-determined outcomes.
TRUTH does not appear to be of primary concern in Lehigh County ‘family court’. Maurer committed perjury when she DENIED that she is/was a solicitor. Maurer frequently argues material misrepresentation of fact and law that flavors the record to support the pre-determined outcomes. The Rules of Professional Conduct require an attorney to remedy such errors, to which Maurer has always refused. In the cases presented, the court refuses to take “judicial notice” to correct the errors. Those judges fail to perform the duties of office with fidelity and to search for the TRUTH.
Maurer is guilty of violating the Rules of Professional Conduct; RPC Rule(s) 1.5; 3.3; 3.4; 3.5; and committing perjury. She aids the court to conceal the despicable acts of criminal editing of audio records, and is a co-conspirator with the court to deprive defendants their right to a fair trial (hearing).
Maurer should be subject to Disciplinary action for her numerous and egregious deviations from the standards for professional conduct. Her lack of integrity demonstrates why the public has greater trust in used car dealers than the legal profession.
Maurer is aware that audio records of court hearings are criminally edited. When first notified of these edits, Maurer responded “This isn’t criminal court.” It is reasonable to presume that Maurer is an accessory to the criminal editing of court audio records. See Select Pennsylvania Statutes: 18 Pa.C.S. 4911.
Maurer testified [ 123 DB 2004 ] to deletions from an audio court record [Sept. 24, 1997], but maintains that she has no knowledge of criminal edits of audio records. Her contradiction commits another perjury.
Maurer relies on her intimate relationship with the court as “solicitor” for protection against complaints of her professional and personal integrity. A disciplinary complaint was filed against her. It was dismissed without an investigation by Disciplinary counsel nominee Alan J. Davis, presumably on the advice of Alan M. Black, another nominee to this Hall of Shame. She admits to “ex parte” communications with the court, and appeals to the court to use the authority of that office to serve her interests; corruption. She has perjured herself “under oath” and as an advocate before the court. She prepared witnesses to testify falsely.
Maurer breaches her professional integrity by charging three times the going rate for services as a court appointee. She “lied” to the court in order to conceal files from “discovery”, including her billing records. Lehigh County judges support her violating the Rules of Professional Conduct. They violate the Code of Judicial Conduct in the process. The appearance of impropriety is supplemented with undisguised prejudice.
Details of Maurer’s misconduct, supported by court documents, appears in JUDICIAL ATROCITIES cases and 123 DB 2004 , the Discipline case. The sequence of events involving Susan G. Maurer, domestic relations and the court are too much in concert to be mere coincidence. See Pennsylvania Statutes for “conspiracy” under 18 Pa.C.S. 903.
Susan G. Maurer was afforded the opportunity to dispute the accusations and allegations brought against her, but by her silence [refusal to answer], she admits to the truth of each accusation. Unless she presents evidence of mitigating circumstances, such as following the orders of judges, Maurer must face disciplinary action and criminal prosecution as an accessory to the illegal editing of audio tapes of court hearings.
The Hamoui and Slusaw cases and the disciplinary case [123 DB 2004] are in development and will appear soon at this site. Check frequently for updates. Susan G. Maurer, DRO solicitor, neglected her duty in the ENNIS case, failing to answer and failing to appear for the hearing.