WIP … a Work In Progress
Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Kathleen Kane, is under attack by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania for exposing criminal corruption in Pennsylvania courts. One must question whether the criminal attacks on the office of the A. G. is retaliatory or a defense against exposure of long-standing corruption in the highest court in the state.
Is there a “connection” to the Zappala family?
This blog by Michael Ference may shed some light on the issues:
My guess would be that, some time in the 1980s, organized crime began to take a different direction – at least in Pennsylvania. The New York mob wasn’t allowing any new made men in the Pittsburgh Cosa Nostra. In the1990s, things began to change. In my opinion, organized crime was successfully evolving into synchronized crime. My investigations would lead to the conclusion the PA government eventually became compromised. Unless all of my sources were lying, judges, elected officials, and law enforcement personnel would soon be bought and sold like stolen merchandise at an outdoor flea market.
Briefly, Chuckie Porter, an underboss for Michael Genovese, was doing time. He decides to get out of jail and start spilling his guts to the feds in the early 90s. Around the same time his son, Charles Porter Jr, would become a partner in a law firm with Stephen Zappala Jr. Was it a coincidence or the beginning stages of Synchronized Crime?
As an underboss, Chuckie Porter would have been privy to all of the corrupt that politicians, elected officials on-the-take, and dirty cops had to offer. Porter would know all the financial data used to buy protection. Thus, he could pass such information to his son, under the veil of lawyer/client confidentiality. Is it possible that the partnership between Zappala and Porter’s son, Charles Jr, was the new beginning for the mob? With this kind of insider information coming from (and even to) an under-boss, all the more people could be bought and sold.
No need to whack anyone, just indict, prosecute, and make sure the judge hands down a lofty sentence. That would send a strong message to anyone willing to mess with the Zappala family. This would make the Zappala family an authentic terrorist group, causing as much fear as those group which use explosives.
Dr. Cyril Wecht first mentioned the “threat to indict,” while DA Zappala was either prosecuting or persecuting Senator Jane Orie. The Orie family characterized the legal attack as a Mafia hit, coincidentally.
And equally coincidental is the observation that Charles Porter Jr would represent one of the witnesses in the trial.
So, the question is simple. Was it the merging of two families that would some day forge the new power structure. Porter Jr.
was could represent his father in some capacity and then could share confidential information with his partners. As an underboss, Chuckie Porter would have known all the dirty DA’s.
He would have known which judges could have been bought and sold. The feds don’t share this kind of information.
Upon graduation from law school, Stephen Zappala Jr. joined the Pittsburgh law firms of Grogan, Graffam, McGinley & Lucchino and Dattilo, Barry, Fasulo & Cambest as an associate. In 1990, he became a partner at Brucker, Zappala, Schneider & Porter, another Pittsburgh law firm.
A Legal Review of the case “Commonwealth v. Kane”.
Kathleen Kane, elected Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is under attack from the Office of District Attorney for Montgomery County, PA. Kane is charged with releasing information from a 2009 grand jury investigating the finances of the former head of the Philadelphia NAACP.
NOTE: MontCo DA Risa Vetri Ferman filed a 42 page Affidavit. If I correctly understand the Constitution, has the prosecutorial authority for every county DA is delegated by the state Attorney General. Ergo, Risa Vetri Ferman is a direct subordinate of Attorney General Kathleen Kane who has authority under the PA Constitution to withdraw the “delegation of authority” from any DA serving in the Commonwealth.
Prosecutors (Vetri et al) contend Kane released the information to get back at Frank Fina, a former prosecutor in the Office of Attorney General who handled the 2009 investigation into the former head of the NAACP. Investigators believe Kane released the information to get back at Fina because she believed he released information to The Philadelphia Inquirer about a sting operation she shut down. Kane is further accused of lying to a 2014 grand jury under oath to cover up the leak.
The essence of charges against her are summarized by the Allentown Morning Call. According to the 42 page affidavit, those activities included:
• Having one of her most trusted advisers, David Peifer, gather information on a 2009 grand jury case involving J. Wyatt Mondesire, a political activist and former head of the Philadelphia chapter of the NAACP. She believed it showed that Fina and Costanzo had failed to prosecute a political corruption case. King [? Kane ?] later testified doing that made it appear she was acting “paranoid.”
• Ordering her political aide, Joshua Morrow, to gather negative information on Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams. Williams had criticized Kane for not prosecuting the case the Inquirer wrote about, and challenged her to send him the case so he could prosecute it, which he did, getting four of the six officials to plead guilty. It was an order, Morrow testified, he refused to follow.
• Having Morrow deliver to a Philadelphia Daily News reporter documents related to the 2009 Mondesire grand jury case even though Bruce Beemer, Kane’s top prosecutor, had deemed the case was properly closed with no criminal charges. The Mondesire case became the subject of a June 6, 2014, news article that Mondesire testified tarnished his reputation because the public did not previously know he had been part of a secret grand jury proceeding.
• Having Peifer and her driver, Patrick Reese, illegally access computerized judicial records related to a leak investigation into how the Daily News got the 2009 grand jury information.
• Ordering her staff not to cooperate with the leak investigation under threat of firing. Beemer testified Kane told him: “If I get taken out of here in handcuffs, what do you think my last act will be?”
• Lying about it all when testifying before the grand jury Nov. 17.
“At that time, she lied repeatedly about her own actions, about the law and about other matters simply to support her version of events,” Ferman said.
Suspending the “license to practice law” of A.G. Kathleen Kane
If the United States of America is truly “a Nation of Laws”, then it is incumbent that the government, federal or state, be held to respect and obey the laws and the Constitutions of the U.S. and of the relevant state without immunity.
On 21 September, 2015, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued an “extraordinary” ruling to suspend the “license to practice law” of State Attorney General Kathleen Granahan Kane, referring to the order as an “emergency temporary suspension”.
Voting to suspend Kane Kane’s law license were Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor, Justices J. Michael Eakin, Max Baer, Justice Debra McCloskey Todd, and Correale F. Stevens.
Before discussing any allegations of criminal misconduct by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania justices, it is most appropriate to inform the reader that SCOTUS has held the practice of law to be an occupation of common right. This ruling is reinforced in the Restatement of Laws (research “unauthorized practice of law”). The practice of law is legally (universally) recognized as a property interest of the holder. Accordingly, in order to suspend or terminate the alleged license to practice law, the respondent to the order must be afforded due process of law pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, Amendments VI, XIV et al. Further, the state Attorney General is an elected office.
In taking this extraordinary course of action, the Supreme Court of Pennsyl-vania overturns an election (an Unconstitutional and possibly Criminal action) without affording its victim the required due process of law.
Kathleen Granahan Kane has been deprived of her property interest without due process of law or equal protection of the laws in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1. All justices serving as the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania are required to swear or affirm an oath of office averring “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitu-tion of this Commonwealth, and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.” PA Constitution, Article VI, Section 3.
Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence; Rule 201 invokes the doctrine of “Judicial Notice” of adjudicative facts. This rule provides that a court must take judicial notice of facts not subject to reasonable dispute. It would be unreasonable to dispute that the practice of law is a property interest and an occupation of common right. Accordingly, such rights must be protected by a court with the assurance that the license of an attorney cannot be terminated or suspended without due process and equal protection of the law.
The Pennsylvania Constitution provides the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (SCOPa) authority to prescribe general rules for the operation, administration, procedure and conduct of all courts. Article V, § 10(c), including itself. This authority may be construed as including the issuance of a license to practice law. However, SCOTUS has held that it is not within the grace of the state to license the practice of law. It follows, a priori, that Pennsylvania has no authority to issue a license to practice law, therefore, SCOPa cannot assume authority to suspend or terminate a non-existent license. Further, SCOPa created a body named The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court (“DBSC”) to administer a measure of self-discipline for the legal profession in Pennsylvania.
Note: The “constitutionality” of Article V, § 10(c), is in question, as well.
DBSC serves SCOPa acting under a General Rule of Court titled Pa. Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement (“RDE”) as promulgated by SCOPa. DBSC claims exclusive disciplinary jurisdiction extending to any attorney admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth. Under these rules, an attorney cannot be subject to discipline unless they have been afforded due process of law and equal protection of the law by and through DBSC.
The extraordinary 21 September, 2015, action of SCOPa that suspends the “license to practice law” of State Attorney General Kathleen Granahan Kane was promulgated in the absence of jurisdiction which, if constitutional at all, must be vested in DBSC. SCOPa circumvented its own rule to assume jurisdiction. Any judicial action taken in the absence of jurisdiction is a “nullity”, an unenforceable order of court.
“Where a court has no jurisdiction of subject matter, its proceedings are void and judge can derive no protection from them against potential civil liability.” In re: Tip-Pa-Hans Enterprises, Inc. 27 B.R. 780 (Va. 1983).
“Once challenged, jurisdiction must be answered.” Hagans v. Lavine, 99 S.Ct. 1372, 78 n. 5 (1973).
“Subject matter jurisdiction is so important that absence of it must be raised at any time, sua sponte, by a court at any level.” Matter of Wildman, 30 B.R. 133 (Bkrtcy Ill. 1983). [Emphasis added.]
One may demand that SCOPa submit a Rule to Show Cause as to why jurisdiction, subject matter and in personam, shall NOT properly be vested in federal Court pursuant to UBC 5.0, Rule 4.C. Absent jurisdiction, SCOPa may not suspend or terminate the “license to practice law” of Attorney General Kane or any other attorney in this Commonwealth.
UBC 5.0 — Judicative Control; Jurisdiction, Rule 4.C.
A second jurisdiction obstacle before SCOPa deals with whether or not a public officer for the Commonwealth may bring charges (legal action) against another public officer in state court. In other words, must any state action against AG Kane be brought in federal court?
It is inarguable that the People (public) must be protected against the actions of a “rogue” Government. That protection is provided by the Uniform Bonding Code (“UBC”). Without getting into an extensive discussion of UBC, the above PRE Rule 201 requires that judicial notice be taken of UBC Rule 5.0.
Under UBC 5.0, when a state agent brings charges against another state agent (or anyone, for that matter) the action / jurisdiction is transferred to a federal court. Accordingly, no Pennsylvania court shall assume jurisdiction for any matter related to the suspension of the license to practice law of the Attorney General of this Commonwealth.
The action of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to suspend the license to practice law of A.G. Kane was taken ultra vires, outside the scope of their authority, and “under color of law.” SCOPa acted without jurisdiction. Its action deserves to be investigated as “criminal misconduct” by the Court.
A third issue facing SCOPa must be the quality / authenticity of the order that allegedly suspends Kane’s license to practice law. SCOPa produced a Per Curiam order. “Per curiam orders” are not defined in Black’s Law Dictionary. Per Curiam orders are unsigned by any judge, ergo, are unenforceable. An unsigned order is the legal equivalent of an unsigned contract; a “nullity”.
One may suspect that the reason SCOPa chose to issue a Per Curiam order is to avoid scrutiny of the Justice who’s signature appears! I am unaware of any “hearing” that afforded AG Kane an opportunity to be heard. OR, perhaps none of the justices were willing to put their signature on a unlawful order.
A more complete discussion of Per Curiam orders is forthcoming.