HARRISBURG – Republican Party of Pennsylvania Chairman Rob Gleason released the following statement regarding the failure of Democratic Supreme Court candidate Judge Jack Panella and the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board to act on a complaint that was filed in 2006 against former Luzerne County Judge Michael Conahan, which alleged wide-spread corruption, case-fixing, mob ties and the improper placement of children in a juvenile detention center.
“The failure of Judge Jack Panella and the Judicial Conduct Board to take the appropriate action on the 2006 complaint against disgraced former Luzerne County Judge Michael Conahan, resulted in the destruction of hundreds of children’s lives,” Gleason said. “In his role on the Judicial Conduct Board, Panella could have helped stop the corruption and scandals taking place in Luzerne County, but his lack of attention and courage allowed two corrupt judges to continue receiving kickbacks for sending countless children sent to detention centers. This complaint regarding judicial misconduct required immediate attention, and Jack Panella failed our children when we needed him most!
“The Judicial Conduct Board is tasked with receiving and investigating complaints regarding judicial conduct, and Jack Panella and the Board failed to stand-up and put an end to the worst case of judicial misconduct in the history of the our country.
“Pennsylvanians deserve to have answers to critically important questions regarding what Judge Panella knew about the Luzerne County judicial complaint and scandal and why he chose not to charge these incredibly corrupt judges who were behind the most egregious abuse of judicial power in the history of our country.
“On November 3rd, one of the individuals charged with overseeing and preventing out-of-control judges, Jack Panella, is asking Pennsylvania voters for a promotion after grossly neglecting his duties. With his track record, do you think he deserves your vote on Election Day? I don’t think so!”
Jack Panella And The Judicial Conduct Board Fail To Act:
· In 2006, the Judicial Conduct Board received a complaint against Luzerne County Judge Michael Conahan alleging wide-spread corruption, mob-ties and for improperly placing juveniles in a privately owned juvenile detention facility. According to The Legal Intelligencer, there is no evidence the Judicial Conduct Board did anything with the complaint. (Grezlak, Hank and Strupezewski, Leo, “Judicial Conduct Complaint Was Filed Against Conahan in 2006,” The Legal Intelligencer, 9/9/09, http://www.law.com/jsp/pa/PubArticleFriendlyPA.jsp?id=120243366605)
· The Legal Intelligencer interviewed former Commonwealth Court judge and former member of the Court of Judicial Discipline, Robert L. Byer who said after reviewing the complaint that the nature of the some of the allegations warranted an investigation by the board. He said, “I think the board should have investigated.” In light of the subsequent events, he said, if the board did not conduct an investigation, “the public has a legitimate right to know what the investigation entailed.” (Grezlak, Hank and Strupezewski, Leo, “Judicial Conduct Complaint Was Filed Against Conahan in 2006,” The Legal Intelligencer, 9/9/09, http://www.law.com/jsp/pa/PubArticleFriendlyPA.jsp?id=120243366605)
Jack Panella And The Judicial Conduct Board Ignored The Red Flags Surrounding Luzerne County Judicial Scandal:
· Former Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella sent a quarter of juvenile defendants to detention centers from 2002 to 2006, compared with a statewide rate of one in ten. (“Pa Judges accused of jailing kids for cash,” Associated Press, 2/1/09, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-02-11-judge-juveniles_N.htm)
· From 2002 to 2006, youth advocacy groups complained that Judge Ciavarella was unusually harsh. Marsha Levick, a lawyer with the Philadelphia-based Juvenile Law Center said, “There was a culture of intimidation surrounding this judge and no one was willing to speak up about the sentences he was handing down.” (Urbian, Ian and Hamill, Sean, “Judges Plead Guilty in Scheme To Jail Youths for Profit,” New York Times, 2/13/09, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/13judge.html)
· In 2008 the Juvenile Law Center filed a motion in the state Supreme Court about more than 500 juveniles who had appeared before Judge Ciavarella without representation. About half of the children in front of Judge Ciavarella waived their constitutional right to counsel. (Urbian, Ian and Hamill, Sean, “Judges Plead Guilty in Scheme To Jail Youths for Profit,” New York Times, 2/13/09, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/13judge.html)
· The New York Times reported, “While judges elsewhere in the state were shifting away from incarcerating juveniles for delinquency, Luzerne County was becoming infamous for imposing heavy sentences for minor infractions. (Urbina, Ian, “Despite Red Flags About Judges, a Kickback Scheme Flourished,” The New York Times, 3/28/09, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/us/28judges.html)
· The number of juveniles Judge Ciavarella sent to secure facilities outside the home more than doubled from 2001 to 2002, around that time the authorities say he and Judge Conahan hatched their kickback plan. And that sentencing trend, more than double the state average, continued through 2007. (Urbina, Ian, “Despite Red Flags About Judges, a Kickback Scheme Flourished,” The New York Times, 3/28/09, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/us/28judges.html)
· In 2003, state auditors at the state Department of Public Welfare noticed the county was billing the state for the same amount every month for detention services. Most other counties, the bill fluctuates based on the changing numbers of juvenile offenders each month. (Urbina, Ian, “Despite Red Flags About Judges, a Kickback Scheme Flourished,” The New York Times, 3/28/09, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/us/28judges.html)
What Is The Judicial Conduct Board?
· The Judicial Conduct Board is composed of 12 members. Jack Panella was appointed to the Judicial Conduct Board by the Supreme Court in 2005. In July of 2007, Panella was elected Chairman of the Board.
· According to the Judicial Conduct Board’s Web site, “The Board investigates every allegation made against a Pennsylvania judge. Each complaint that is filed with the Board is thoroughly reviewed and analyzed by the staff as well as the twelve Board Members. This procedure is an essential safeguard in the integrity of and the public confidence in the judicial process.” (http://www.judicialconductboardofpa.org/MissionStatement.html, Accessed 10/22/09)
# # #