elmtelligence

A fun destination is awaiting you, Lovely Luzerne County in the picturesque Allegheny mountains of Pennsylvania. Where lawlessness is a way of life. Come and tour or Judicial system and be amazed by how it slaps the face of the Keystone state. This is the state where the Declaration of Independence and the bill of Rights were signed yet you would never know it by the way the courts operate there.

Group alleges hundreds of county youths denied lawyers
By Terrie Morgan-Besecker [email protected]Law & Order Reporter
WILKES-BARRE – Alleging youths are being denied their right to an attorney, a juvenile rights group Tuesday filed a petition asking the state Supreme Court to intervene in hundreds of past and current Luzerne County juvenile court cases.
An attorney for the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia said the center was prompted to act after research showed that 50 percent of youths who went through Luzerne County’s juvenile court system in 2005 and 2006 were not represented by an attorney – a figure the center says is 10 times the state average.
The failure to provide even the “most minimal” constitutional protections to those youths resulted in many making admissions of guilt without fully understanding their legal rights or the consequences, said Marsha Levick, the center’s legal director and one of the authors of the petition.
“Luzerne County’s juvenile court proceedings represent the most egregious violation of children’s constitutional rights in Pennsylvania,” Levick said. “When more than half of all youth appear in court without legal representation … something is seriously wrong and it must be stopped.”
The petition was filed on behalf of two juveniles who went through the court system in 2007, as well as all juveniles with current cases.
It alleges the county’s juvenile judge, Mark Ciavarella, and juvenile probation officials have failed to follow regulations that require juveniles be advised they have a right to an attorney.
The petition further alleges court officials violated state regulations by allowing parents to waive a child’s right to counsel without the child’s consent, and that Ciavarella has failed to question youths who entered guilty pleas to ensure they understand the ramifications of proceeding without an attorney.
The center is asking the court to vacate decisions made in all cases dating from 2005 to present in which the juvenile was not represented by an attorney. It has identified 285 cases from 2005, and 281 from 2006. The number of cases in 2007 and 2008 is not yet known.
Ciavarella acknowledged Tuesday that a high percentage of youths who come before him are not represented by attorneys. He could not explain why the numbers were so much higher than other counties.
The judge said in many cases he believes parents opt not to obtain attorneys because they know their child is guilty.
He insisted parents are advised at every step of the process that their child is entitled to an attorney, and that one will be appointed if they cannot afford one.
“It’s not like they’re walking into this blind. They are advised on three different occasions they have a right to have a lawyer present,” Ciavarella said. “If they want waive their right to an attorney, that’s their business.”
The center’s petition is based on the cases Jessica Van Reeth, now 18, and a female identified as H.T., now 17.
Van Reeth was 16 when she was charged with possession of drug paraphernalia. She and her parents allege they were never advised of her right to an attorney. She admitted guilt and was placed in a residential treatment facility for three months, even though it was her first involvement with police.
H.T. was charged with harassment in April 2007 for creating a Web page that contained derogatory information about an assistant principal at her school.
The girl, also a first-time offender, admitted her actions, was immediately carted off in handcuffs to begin serving a three months at a residential treatment facility.
The child’s mother acknowledged waiving the child’s right to an attorney, but the youth did not sign the waiver, as regulations require. The mother also claimed the child was never questioned to ensure she understood the potential consequences of entering a plea without first consulting an attorney, the petition says.
Ultimately, the child was returned home a few weeks later after the Juvenile Law Center intervened on her behalf and convinced Ciavarella to release her, based on the fact the child had not waived her right to an attorney.
Levick said the center felt at that point the issue was resolved. Since then, there have been at least three other cases in which juveniles alleged they were not afforded an opportunity for counsel, she said.
“When we got (H.T.’s) adjudication reversed we thought we wouldn’t have to do it again,” she said. “As we collected information over the next several moths, we realized we had made no difference. It apparently will take extraordinary action and extraordinary intervention by the Supreme Court to fix this.”
What’s Next
Ciavarella said he has contacted the attorney for the county’s juvenile probation department, who will file a response to the petition. The Supreme Court will review the documents and decide whether it will intervene.
Terrie Morgan-Besecker, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 570-829-7179

The Times Leader is a interesting read, they will tell all of the dirty little secrets of Luzerne County. I wonder if Judge Conahan got a kickback from his brother-in-law for all of the county work he got him?

Judge’s brother-in-law paid $877K
Psych services to court not bid out
By Jennifer Learn-Andes [email protected]Luzerne County Reporter
A Luzerne County judge’s brother-in-law has been paid $877,880 to provide psychological services to the court system since 2004, raising questions about why that work isn’t publicly advertised.

The psychologist, Frank Vita, is married to the sister of Mike Conahan, who is now a senior judge in the county Court of Common Pleas.
Psychology is considered a professional service by county officials.

The county’s 2004 purchasing policy requires public requests for proposals or qualifications for professional services over $7,500. The mandate is meant to give everyone a shot at the work and to gather cost comparisons, though there’s no requirement that the work will go to the individual or business that submits the lowest price.

Common Pleas President Judge Mark Ciavarella said he wasn’t aware of the county purchasing policy and has been abiding by the state County Code, which does not require public advertising for professional services.

Requests-for-proposals will be sought for the psychology service in the future, said county Chief Clerk/Manager Doug Pape.
Ciavarella said he has no problem advertising the psychology work, but he stressed that he does not believe the court is required to abide by the county’s purchasing policy.

“The court is a separate branch of government. They (commissioners) can’t dictate how I manage the court system, as long as I am in compliance with the state law,” Ciavarella said.
But Commissioners Stephen A. Urban and Maryanne Petrilla believe the courts must follow the county policy.

Urban said $877,880 is a lot of money to pay someone without shopping around for the prices and qualifications of other providers.
Petrilla said she knows of no county document or state law that exempts the courts from following county purchasing policies.

“Since the county is the funding source for the courts, and their budget is approved by the commissioners, I see no reason why they don’t follow all county policies,” Petrilla said.
Vita and Conahan could not be reached for comment.
Ciavarella said Vita “does an outstanding job.” Vita assesses juvenile offenders and recommends appropriate treatment to the judge. Ciavarella has been handling juvenile court cases in the county for years.

“When I first got on the bench, I received psychological reports that were not worth the paper they were printed on. His reports are 10 and 20 pages long and very extensive,” Ciavarella said.
Vita typically spends 10 to 16 hours evaluating each juvenile offender, Ciavarella said.
“In the juvenile system, it’s so important to get the child in the right program. Without that, we’re just wasting our money,” Ciavarella said.

Vita started providing psychology services to the court system when Joseph Augello was president judge, said county Probation Director Larry Saba.
Conahan then served as president judge from 2002 through 2006 until Ciavarella took over the role. The president judge decides who is hired in court branches and oversees the court’s administrative affairs.

The controller’s office did not have records on Vita’s payments before 2004.
Here’s the breakdown of what Vita was paid: $233,705 in 2004; $189,495 in 2005; $200,160 in 2006; $180,360 in 2007 and $74,160 this year to date.
Purchasing has become an issue in the county since the recent discovery that prison kitchen purchases were illegally piecemealed, or broken into smaller amounts to circumvent requirements to obtain quotes and/or bids.

County officials have started visiting each department and discovered other examples of purchases that did not comply with the county’s purchasing policy.
Jennifer Learn-Andes, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 831-7333.

I wonder if they did the psych evaluation on Joe Kerekes as well as Bryan Kocis in his first case? It really makes you woinder what is going on in Luzerne County.

Well it looks like PC is on a mission to cause problems for me. What I find interesting is that he himself asked me to keep our conversations private which I did. I never posted any of our conversations on my blog yet he has done exactly what he asked me not to do.

Well I have all of our conversations archived as well as all of the emails but I choose not to post them. To me it seems that he is just a bit pissed off at me for some stupid reason. My blog is a place for me to say what I want to say about how I feel about this murder case and his is his place to do the same.

What I find funny is that he is now attacking me for my opinion. He claims that I don’t have proof to back up the comments that I have made but I know who his source was in Virginia Beach court system. I also know that he was informed by this source on who to contact in the Luzerne County Court system. I have this in PC’s own words in comments that he made to me.

So I guess he is now going to play nasty. That really is to bad because I don’t think it is that important to destroy someone with their own words and I won’t go there unless I am pushed.

this is Elmysterio and I’m out.