2 Pa. judges given partial immunity in civil suit
The Associated Press by MARK SCOLFORO - November 23, 2009
HARRISBURG, Pa. Two former county judges accused of taking millions of dollars in kickbacks to send juveniles to private detention facilities are partially immune from civil lawsuits, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled Friday. The decision by U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo could make it harder for the people suing former Luzerne County judges Michael T. Conahan and Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. to collect damages. Caputo said Ciavarella will avoid civil consequences for "the vast majority" of his conduct, because much of it occurred inside a courtroom, such as determination of delinquency and sentencing. He said Conahan largely would not be immune, because his alleged actions were more administrative in nature, such as signing a placement agreement with the detention centers. The decisions have no bearing on the federal criminal charges that Ciavarella and Conahan are currently facing in what has become known as the kids-for-cash scandal. Marsha Levick, a lawyer with the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia, a co-counsel for plaintiffs in the case, said Friday she did not consider the ruling to be a major setback. There are more than 400 named plaintiffs in the case, and lawyers are seeking class-action status. "I think what's important is the judges remained in the litigation," Levick said. "Conahan is extremely vulnerable because most of what Conahan did with respect to the plaintiffs' allegations, it was all outside the courtroom." She said the plaintiffs cannot appeal Caputo's decision at this point in the proceedings, although Conahan or Ciavarella can if they want.
Both former judges are representing themselves in the lawsuit, and neither appeared to have a listed home phone number. Caputo said the case involved principles of judicial independence that date back hundreds of years and are designed to protect judges who make sincere mistakes, uphold the reputation of the courts and meet the need for the court system to render final judgments. "I am not unmindful of the egregious nature of the alleged conduct presented in this case," Caputo wrote. "This is, however, about the rule of law. It is about the rule of law in the face of popular opinion which would seek a finding directly contrary to the result the rule of law dictates." At the heart of the lawsuit and criminal case are claims that Ciavarella routinely violated the legal rights of juvenile defendants in his courtroom as part of a conspiracy with Conahan and others to funnel them into privately run detention centers. Authorities say the judges received about $2.8 million in kickbacks as a result. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has voided thousands of juvenile convictions issued by Ciavarella. The two former judges pleaded guilty in February to honest services fraud and tax evasion in a deal with prosecutors that called for an 87-month sentence. But that plea bargain was voided in August when a federal judge decided the two were not accepting proper responsibility for their deeds. Ciavarella and Conahan changed their pleas to not guilty, and were later indicted on racketeering charges. They await trial.
HARRISBURG, Pa. Two former county judges accused of taking millions of dollars in kickbacks to send juveniles to private detention facilities are partially immune from civil lawsuits, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled Friday. The decision by U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo could make it harder for the people suing former Luzerne County judges Michael T. Conahan and Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. to collect damages. Caputo said Ciavarella will avoid civil consequences for "the vast majority" of his conduct, because much of it occurred inside a courtroom, such as determination of delinquency and sentencing. He said Conahan largely would not be immune, because his alleged actions were more administrative in nature, such as signing a placement agreement with the detention centers. The decisions have no bearing on the federal criminal charges that Ciavarella and Conahan are currently facing in what has become known as the kids-for-cash scandal. Marsha Levick, a lawyer with the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia, a co-counsel for plaintiffs in the case, said Friday she did not consider the ruling to be a major setback. There are more than 400 named plaintiffs in the case, and lawyers are seeking class-action status. "I think what's important is the judges remained in the litigation," Levick said. "Conahan is extremely vulnerable because most of what Conahan did with respect to the plaintiffs' allegations, it was all outside the courtroom." She said the plaintiffs cannot appeal Caputo's decision at this point in the proceedings, although Conahan or Ciavarella can if they want.
Both former judges are representing themselves in the lawsuit, and neither appeared to have a listed home phone number. Caputo said the case involved principles of judicial independence that date back hundreds of years and are designed to protect judges who make sincere mistakes, uphold the reputation of the courts and meet the need for the court system to render final judgments. "I am not unmindful of the egregious nature of the alleged conduct presented in this case," Caputo wrote. "This is, however, about the rule of law. It is about the rule of law in the face of popular opinion which would seek a finding directly contrary to the result the rule of law dictates." At the heart of the lawsuit and criminal case are claims that Ciavarella routinely violated the legal rights of juvenile defendants in his courtroom as part of a conspiracy with Conahan and others to funnel them into privately run detention centers. Authorities say the judges received about $2.8 million in kickbacks as a result. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has voided thousands of juvenile convictions issued by Ciavarella. The two former judges pleaded guilty in February to honest services fraud and tax evasion in a deal with prosecutors that called for an 87-month sentence. But that plea bargain was voided in August when a federal judge decided the two were not accepting proper responsibility for their deeds. Ciavarella and Conahan changed their pleas to not guilty, and were later indicted on racketeering charges. They await trial.
The Citizen's Voice by DAVE JANOSKI - November 20, 2009
A federal judge has ruled that former judges Michael T. Conahan and Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. are immune from damages in civil suits stemming from the kids-for-cash scandal for actions they took in court, but not for their out-of-court actions. U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo also denied a motion by Luzerne County claiming immunity in the suits filed by hundreds of juveniles sentenced by Ciavarella. But Caputo rejected the plaintiffs' move to amend their civil-rights compalints to present additional arguments aganst the county, leading a county attorney to call the rulings "a great victory." Because Caputo rejected the arguments that would have been made in the amended complaints, the county is a defendant "in name only" and will file motions to extricate itself from the suit, county attorney John Dean said .
Posts
12 comments:
I am REPULSED beyond my ability to articulate.
I wonder how much Justice John K. McGuirk from Orange County is been paid to sell children...
The Federal Courts are bound to use Pennsylvania Law in Federal Courts. The following with comments in parentheses is copied from the Constitution of Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania Constitution : Inherent Rights of Mankind (And the non existent rights of Judicial Immunity)
Section 1.
All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness. Courts to Be Open; Suits Against the Commonwealth. (There is no special immunity for a class called judges)
Section 11.
All courts shall be open; and every man for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law, and eight and justice administered without sale, denial or delay. Suits may be brought against the Commonwealth in such manner, in such courts and in such cases as the Legislature may by law direct. (There is remedy against the judges)
Section 12.
No power of suspending laws shall be exercised unless by the Legislature or by its authority. (The Legislature has not suspended laws to allow judicial immunity)
Section 25 Reservation of Powers in People
To guard against the transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate. (There is no power of Government nor of judges to grant themselves immunity)
Are you waiting for a newspaper reporter to have the fortitude to speak out? Do you fear your elected judges; make them fear you.
Did I miss something?
When I read the Constitution, I didn't see anything about "Judicial Immunity."
I did see "Due Process."
I know that there is also nothing in the NYS Constitution or the laws that give any immunity to judges.
Again, this is something that the judges made up and try to make it seem like they are doing their jobs, applying the laws to the facts.
Just another scam by lawyers.
I will emphasize again...District Courts are protecting state courts in secretive, clever and ways the American citizen cannot circumvent ...as these judges with lfetime appointments...are rarely ever removed, less than a handful ever, so they feel entitled to.... DO WHATEVER THEY WANT...WHENEVER AND HOWEVER THEY WANT AND THOSE FEW ABOVE THEM HAVE GRANTED SAID BEHAVIOR ...AND THUS DISTRICT JUDGES HAVE BECOME MORE DANGEROUS THEN THE STATE JUDICIARY!
This is a judicial branch that needs monitoring even deeper than the NY state group...seriously.
We MUST settle on a specific time and date to MAKE OUR COLLECTIVE VOICES HEARD.
The ELITE in this society shall be elite NO MORE.
If judges need immunity, let em' buy insurance policies...........
It's the old attorneys protection society at work once again. It's their court and their rules, so they win. Who doesn't understand that?
what a joke! this whole system is nothing but a dog horse cat and rabbit show! no justice at all no such thing only gang assocations!!
Apparently, Sanctuary for Families has more money and political connections than God, and routinely uses "affiliate" Manhattan Mega-Law Firms of 10,000 plus lawyers, whom they "associate," to kick the living crap out of good men and fathers in Family Court, all for free, on behalf of sick, abusive, alcoholic, drug addicted and violent single mothers.
These corrupt mega law firms, while touting and bragging that they are "doing all the work for free" or "pro bono," are actually billing the Federal Government up the ass for thousands of fraudulent hours of work on behalf of these "abused women" con-artist females and Sanctuary for Families, under VAWA-based federal funding programs.
Hey, in a bad economy, fraudulently bilking the Federal Government with bogus and frivolous litigation, on behalf of "fake abused women," for hundreds of millions a dollars a year, ain't a bad racket.
The only problem is, no one cares that innocent babies and children are routinely getting killed, maimed, abused, neglected, and molested by some of these sick single unfit mothers because their good fathers have been completely shut out of their lives. This is all the while Sanctuary for Families subverts and sabotages the ACS investigative process, interrogates and intimidates witnesses, targets good fathers and witnesses for personal and professional destruction, engages in illegal ex-parte communication with Court appointed Court Officials and Judges, pays people off, bribes people, and destroys families, all for the sake of the almighty dollar, greed, and God knows what other type of benefits they get out of it.
Sick people indeed.
Tim Geithner, Henry Paulson, Benjamin Bernanke, and Goldman Sachs could take lessons from these fraudsters.
Why does Administration for Childrens' Services ("ACS") routinely sweep under the rug allegations of child abuse, child neglect, and child molestation (even when they are provided photographs, physical evidence, and tape recordings proof) whenever Sanctuary for Families starts representing the abusive mother?
Is it because Sanctuary for Families is an ultra militant Feminazi-lesbian organization which would rather neuter and castrate men and good fathers, rather than help ACS investigate and prosecute abusive, psychotic, alcoholic, violent, drug-addicted single mothers just because they are women?
Or is it also because Sanctuary for Families, a tax-exempt organization, routinely offers highly paid and cushy job offers to former ACS Investigators if they "play ball" and help illegally protect abusive and sick mothers who beat their kids?
Who can say for sure?
The Sexual Revolution is over.
Men LOST. Lesbian Feminazis WON.
Why does Administration for Childrens' Services ("ACS") routinely sweep under the rug allegations of child abuse, child neglect, and child molestation (even when they are provided photographs, physical evidence, and tape recordings proof) whenever Sanctuary for Families starts representing the abusive mother?
Is it because Sanctuary for Families is an ultra militant Feminazi-lesbian organization which would rather neuter and castrate men and good fathers, rather than help ACS investigate and prosecute abusive, psychotic, alcoholic, violent, drug-addicted single mothers just because they are women?
Or is it also because Sanctuary for Families, a tax-exempt organization, routinely offers highly paid and cushy job offers to former ACS Investigators if they "play ball" and help illegally protect abusive and sick mothers who beat their kids?
Who can say for sure?
The Sexual Revolution is over.
Men LOST. Lesbian Feminazis WON.
New York, NY - Scathing Report Exposes Problems With ACS
http://www.vosizneias.com/10994/2007/08/09/new-york-ny-scathing-report-exposes/
New York, NY - The city issued a damning report on its child welfare agency today, calling for significant change in the way caseworkers look into allegations of abuse and neglect after 10 children died as a result of bungled investigations.
The city's Department of Investigation said it probed the deaths of 11 children and one who nearly drowned in an eight-month stretch. DOI said that in all the cases, the Administration for Children's Services was either investigating the parents or had completed its findings.
"In all but one of these cases, DOI has found that the investigations conducted by ACS were substantially inadequate and incomplete," the 141-page report said.
The sharply critical report outlines a troubling pattern of lying, incompetence, carelessness, ill-trained caseworkers and the grim details of the little children whose deaths likely could have been prevented, according to the report.
Mayor Bloomberg ordered the DOI investigation after widespread concern about ACS's ability to properly investigate and respond to abuse allegations.
The report said caseworkers routinely took the word of parents who denied the allegations. At other times, managers put pressure on caseworkers to "close cases within the state-mandated 60 day period at the expense of a thorough and thoughtful investigation of the allegations."
Shoddy work was rampant.
Post a Comment