Docstoc

COMPLAINT - Download as DOC

Document Sample
COMPLAINT - Download as DOC Powered By Docstoc
					             THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD OF PENNSYLVANIA

                              Complaint of Judicial Misconduct



                                       SUBJECT JUDGE

JUDGE KATHRYNANN W. DURHAM, Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, 201 W. Front
Street, Media, PA 19063.

                                         ALLEGATION

Commission of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud to protect Insurer.



                                        CO-CONSPIRATORS

(1) INDEPENDENCE BLUE CROSS, 1901 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103

(2) GERALD J. DUGAN, ESQ., of Dugan, Brinkman, Maginnis and Pace, 1818 JFK Boulevard, Suite
1400, Philadelphia, PA 19103



                                           AFFIDAVIT

The undersigned Complainant ALI WARIS pro se solemnly affirms that his statements made
under the caption Statement of Facts are true to the best of his knowledge, belief and
understanding.    He understands that any material false statements made herein are
subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.



September 9, 2009

                                                         ___________________________

                                                                 Complainant

                                                                ALI WARIS, pro se
                                                            Tel:(713)408-3936; ichm@aol.com




                                              0
                                          SUMMARY

       This Complaint could be grouped in to two categories: (1) Judicial decisions made

by the subject judge, and (2) fraud committed by the subject judge on which she based her

rulings.

       The Complaint is not about the judicial decisions which cannot be addressed and

remedied by this Board. The Complaint is only about the extrinsic fraud perpetrated by

the subject judge in order to block out the long trail of misconduct of other judges who

have acted as agents of an insurer and came to a ruling favorable to the Insurer.

                                    Specific Act of Misconduct

.      On December 26, 2007, Judge Durham entered an Order, pursuant to Pa. App.

Proc. Rule 1925 (b), requiring the Plaintiff-Appellant to file, and serve to opposing

counsel, [Exhibit “A”, Page 168].

       According to the Court docket records, the Order was ENTERED on January 11,

2008 and per Rule 236 Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedures, a Rule 236 Notice was

issued on that date. However, Judge Durham got the Order rubber-stamped for June 2,

2008, and, based on this date, got Plaintiff’s 1925 (b) Statement time-barred.

       Evidence that the Order was docketed on June 11, 2008 and not on January 2, 2008,

lies in the fact that according to the law, the Rule 236 Notice was issued on June 11, 2009,

as is evident from the docket.

       Judge Durham, in conspiracy with Independence Blue Cross, suppressed Plaintiff’s

protest pointing out that it was an error.

       This was not an isolated incident. There is long paper-trail showing the Delaware

County Court, throughout the case, went out of its way to provide judge-shopping to IBC,

did not investigate the criminal conduct of its lawyer and breached Plaintiff’s privileges

without due process.


                                              1
                                      INTRODUCTION


       Complainant Ali Waris pro se, files this Complaint of Judicial Misconduct against

JUDGE KATHYRYN W. DURHAM of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas.

       Judge Durham’s Court, the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas has a notoriety

for racism and for supporting the Insurance Industry.

       Abusing her judicial position, and with the help of the instruments, personnel and

colleagues of her court, Judge Durham engaged herself in fraudulent conduct to favor one

of Pennsylvania’s most political and powerful businesses, IBC.

       Based on irrefutable evidence, it is Complainant’s belief that the Judge conspired and

colluded with the Insurer to award it an undeserving victory through extrinsic fraud. In the

process, the Judge has left a bona fide paper trail that leads to one, and only one, conclusion

that she deliberated committed fraud to unlawfully favor IBC.

       There are two additional factors that lend support to the allegation of IBC’s judicial

networking and the strong affinity of Delaware County Court of Common Pleas for IBC:

          (1) As would be evident from the following Statement of Facts, two other Judges of

the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas subverted the judicial proceedings in this case

to favor IBC and Judge Durham’s fraud was designed to block out the misconduct of these

Judges.

       (2) IBC’s networking with certain federal judges through its counsel Morgan Lewis

and Bockius is also being complained. In this collusion, the law firm of Morgan Lewis in its

representation of Independence Blue Cross criminally conspired with Judge Marvin Katz of

the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and with Chief Judge Anthony

Sciria of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. These activities are being submitted to the U.S.

Department of Justice for investigation. Judge Katz has left the bench as the scandal broke.



                                              2
                                 STATEMENT OF FACTS


      1. In November 2005, this Complainant [“Plaintiff”] filed a claim for $100,000

against his health insurer, IBC, at the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas [“County

Court”].

      2. On January 24, 2006, the complaint was amended [“amended complaint”]. [See

EXHIBIT “A” Pages 001 to 020].

      3. IBC filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint which was denied. Thus

the amendment complaint sustained all of its 7 counts.

      4. As the case progressed,     Plaintiff   discovered substantial discovery fraud

perpetrated by the IBC’s in-house counsel and its litigation counsel in this case.

      5. Consequently, in one his Motions at the County Court, Plaintiff asked the court

for an investigation of fraud [EXHIBIT “B” 029 to 063].

      6. At this stage, IBC replaced its counsel GREGG F. LEPORE with Attorney

GERALD J. DUGAN, apparently, with better judicial connections.

      7. Though Attorney Dugan’s law office was based in the City of Philadelphia, he

maintained a dummy law office in Media, Pa, a few blocks from the County Court,

apparently, for networking with the County Court officials. [Attorney Dugan has admitted

under oath that he never earned a single cent from the Media office].

      8. Attorney Dugan’s arrival at the scene changed the status of the case by 180

degrees in IBC’s favor.

      9. The case was reassigned to the late Judge Harry J. Bradley, allegedly a former

insurance defense lawyer with a reputation of ruling in favor of insurance companies.

      10. The reassignment of the case to Judge Bradley’s Court was effectuated by

circumventing the court’s purported random assignment of cases and motions to judges.

When put under oath, the court administrator, GERALD C. MONTELLA could not


                                           3
establish that the reassignment of the case to Judge Bradley was on a random basis.

      11. When Plaintiff protested over Montella’s circumvention of court’s random

assignment’s Judge Bradley and JUDGE GEORGE PAGANO [who is still on the bench at

the County Court], on behest of IBC, forced the Plaintiff to surrender his attorney-

client and medical-confidentiality privileges without a hearing or other DUE PROCESS.

      12. When Plaintiff filed an Emergency Petition [EXHIBIT “C” 083 to 090] with the

President Judge to protect his time-honored privileges, Montella placed it with Judges

Bradley and Pagano instead of the President Judge, for it to be denied.

      13. Montella then assigned Plaintiff’s claim to Judge Kathrynann W. Durham.

Judge Durham is on the Insurance Committee.

      14. Emboldened by the biased support of the pro-insurance courthouse, Attorney

Dugan perpetrated a number of crimes to subvert the judicial proceedings including

submission of falsely certified and attested documents to the Bradley Court, mail and

wire fraud, etc. [EXHIBIT “D” 097 to 124].

      15. Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify Attorney Dugan, due to his criminal conduct,

did not go anywhere though the facts stated in the motion were under affidavit.

      16. Ultimately, as expected, Judge Durham ruled in favor of the IBC and in her

Order dated December 26, 2007, stated [EXHIBIT “E” 168]:


      Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure No. 1925 (b), it is
      OREDRRED and DECREED that Plaintiff Appellant Ali Waris shall file of
      record, and serve on all counsel and the Court, a concise Statement of
      matters complained of on appeal within twenty-one 21 days from the date
      of this Order entered on the docket. [emphasis added].




                                           4
STEPS IN THE COMMISSION OF FRAUD BY JUDGE DURHAM

       17. Thus the Order dated 26th of December, 2007, required Plaintiff to file his

Statement of Issues on Appeal “within twenty-one (21) days from the date of [the] Order

entered on the docket.” [See Id.].

       18. The above-referenced Order was “entered on the docket” on January 11,

2008. The 236 Notice was issued to Plaintiff on the same day.

       19. Plaintiff timely filed his Amended Statement of Issues on Appeal on February

1, 2008, exactly 21 days from the date the Order was “entered on the docket.” All the

dates referenced above are clearly reflected on the Docket sheet. [EXHIBIT “F” 026].

       20. Judge Durham, however, falsely stated in her Opinion [EXHIBIT “G” 147 to

167] that Plaintiff was late in filing his Statement. In order to justify her false statement,

Judge Durham used a “filing date” stamp [EXHIBIT “E”. 168] which had NOTHING TO

DO with the docket date which commenced much later on January 11, 2008. [Id. 026].

       21. Because by using the “filing date” of January 2, 2008, rather than “docketing

date” of January 11, 2009, suited Judge Durham’s co-conspirator, the Independence Blue

Cross, she kept insisting that the “filing date” was the docketing date despite the fact that

Plaintiff repeatedly protested against such fraud.

       22. Thus Judge Durham fraudulently sabotaged Plaintiff’s appeal by ruling it

time-barred.


EVIDENCE OF FRAUD


       23. Evidence that that January 11, 2008, and not January 2, 2008, was the
docketing date is based on the fact the law requires Rule 236. Notice by Prothonotary
of Entry of Order, Decree, or Judgment provides:

       (a) The prothonotary shall immediately give written notice of the entry of any other
order or judgment to each party's attorney of record or, if unrepresented, to each party.
The notice shall include a copy of the order or judgment.



                                              5
       (b) The prothonotary shall note in the docket the giving of the notice...Pa.R.C.P.
236; See also Forest Highlands Community Association v. Hammer, 879 A.2d 223, 227
(Pa. Super. 2005); Laws v. Laws, 758 A.2d 1226, 1228 (Pa. Super.2000);

      24. According to William Schlag v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (Case No.

706 C.D. 2008, Pa Super. filed January 7, 2009) “ if the docket does not show that notice

of the entry of a Rule 1925 (b) order was provided to an appellant, we will not conclude

that the appellant’s issues have been waived for failure to file a Rule 1925 (b) statement.

Citing, Forest Highlands Community Association, supra at 229; Laws, supra at 1228.

      25. The Schlag Opinion further states: “That a party may have actually received

notice is not determinative under circumstances where the docket does not reflect that

notice was sent.” Citing, Frazier v. City of Philadelphia, 557 Pa.618, 621-22, 735 A.2d

113, 115 (1999) (reiterating that the procedural rules are designed to “promote clarity,

certainty and ease of determination” and to eliminate the need for the appellate court to

engage in a case-by-case factual determination of whether an appeal was perfected in

timely manner).

      26. In the instant case, the Trial Court, docket entry on January 11, 2008, clearly

indicates that the 236 Notice was issued 1/11/08. See Page 026.” under 1/2/2008 item

58 last line of the paragraph reads: [Durham, J. 12/26/07] 236 N/S/ 1/11/08].

      27. Evidence of willful misconduct comes from Judge Durham’s refusal to correct

the discrepancy even after it was pointed out in Plaintiff’s Rule 1925 (b) statement.

                                 FOCUS OF INVESTIGATION

      Complainant requests the following questions be answered by the Pennsylvania

Board of Judicial Conduct:

      1. Did Court Administrator Gerald C. Montella circumvent the Court’s procedure

on random assignment of cases and motion to judges?




                                            6
       2. Did Montella    place Independence Blue Cross’ Motion before Judge Harry

Bradley who was a former insurance defense attorney with a reputation to rule in favor of

insurance companies?

       3. Did then President Judge take any action against Montella when he learned

that Montella was circumventing court’s procedures for random assignment of motions?

       4. Did Judge George Pagano violate any other litigant’s medical confidentiality

and attorney-client privileges without due process?

       5. Why the Delaware County Court failed to investigate Plaintiff’s allegations

against   Attorney Gerald Dugan for submitting false documents to the Court and

tampering with the evidence?

       WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that a fair and unbiased investigation

be conducted in this matter and the conspirators including Independence Blue Cross

officers and attorneys be investigated.

       A copy of this Complaint is being submitted to the Pennsylvania Attorney General

for its investigation against the lawyers and the law firms that are involved in this case.


Respectfully submitted,


                                                                      September 9, 2009


Ali Waris, Plaintiff pro se
Tel: 713-408-3936; Fax: 610-450-6775
ichm@AOL.com

Cc:

Pennsylvania Attorney General




                                            7

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:70
posted:9/16/2011
language:English
pages:8