PRESS RELEASE
Contact: Eugene A. Wrona
Tel/Fax (610) 821-1155 / FAX (610) 821-1021
Email esquirepa@aol.com
Pennsylvania attorney Eugene Wrona of Lehigh County believes all litigants in
family court should receive equal treatment, fair play, and due process of law
in the courts. He contends that this is a rare occurrence for fathers and their
second families.
Fair treatment was not afforded Farouk Hamoui, who lives with his wife and four children in Allentown. Hamoui was paying $57.00 per week child support for a 12-year old son living with his mother, Virginia Ternigan, of Coplay. Unable to support his family on his $1,306.00 monthly net income, Hamoui sued in March 1999 to lower the support obligation. Instead of reducing Hamoui's obligation, Lehigh County Judge Alan M. Black raised it by $13 weekly to $70.00, based on support guidelines that became effective in April 1999. Wrona contends that this constitutes an ex post facto application of law.
In a collateral action, Wrona moved for the disqualification of Lehigh County's Title IV-D attorney [Susan Maurer] because she serves as the solicitor for Lehigh County in family court. A solicitor serves as the legal representative for a governmental body. Attorney Maurer represents Lehigh County in Lehigh County courts, before the same judges. This matter was brought before Family Court Administrative Judge Edward D. Reibman, who denied father's motion. Wrona argues that when a 'solicitor' represents private clients before the same judges, it creates an appearance of impropriety and susceptibility to prejudice that deprives opposing litigants of due process. Horn v. Hilltown Twp., 337 A.2d 858, 461 Pa. 745, (Pa. 1975); a PA Supreme Court case. The Superior Court Quashed Wrona's appeal of this matter, failing to reach the merits. The PA Supreme Court would not grant Wrona's application for an allowance of appeal.
Wrona contends that the court is prejudiced in favor of Mother as evidenced in the record. Mother did not testify, the law was applied differently for the calculation of net incomes, the court accepted facts not in evidence for Mother's claim and disregarded unrefuted testimony of Father. The court shields Mother from testifying, thereby obstructing the defendant's due process right to cross-examine her, and to test her credibility. The court also affords superior weight to presentations of fact or law as submitted by the Title IV-D attorney.
Wrona further argues that the child support guidelines, as amended in 1999, are unconstitutional in multiple family cases as having a disparate impact on second families when the payee has a higher income than payor. He contends that the guidelines illegally discriminate against children in second families. Under the 1999 amendment of the guidelines, the support award for claimant (payee) increases by 35%, while the allocation for children in family number two either decreases or has a negligible increase of less than 1%.
Wrona filed a notice of the constitutional challenge with Zygmont Pines, Acting Court Administrator of Pennsylvania. To date, the Court Administrator has not responded to this notice to either Attorney Wrona or to the appellate court.
Wrona's appeal to the Superior Court raises six issues, five of which argue deprivation of Constitutional rights.
In his appellate brief, Wrona accuses the lower court of prejudice and bias based on:
§ applying a law ex post facto;
§ disregard of Hamoui's constitutional right to due process and equal protection, including denying discovery and failing to provide defendant of notice of a new issue;
§ misapplying the support guidelines;
§ failure to conduct a hearing on the merits of the case, which includes capricious disregard of fact and law, and assuming facts not in evidence; (the court shielded Mother from cross-examination);
§ allowing a solicitor to appear as a Title IV-D attorney; and,
§ applying an unconstitutional rule of law (support guidelines)
Counsel for appellee refused to file a response brief.
Appellant is entitled to judgment!
-- UNLESS --
The appellate court can find a way so as to not reach the merits of any issue appealed from.
Here, the appellate panel constructed a unique (and novel) interpretation of Appellate Rule 1925(b), ruling that every issue appealed was "waived" by appellant. The Superior Court essentially holds that rights secured under the Constitution may be abridged, and forfeited, under a procedural rule of law.
"The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body - working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1821.
Wrona argues that his client wrongly suffers from "judicial bias" and illegal judicial procedures as well as deprivation of his constitutional rights in Lehigh County and Pennsylvania Superior courts.
Wrona recently filed a petition to Pennsylvania's Supreme Court, requesting an Allowance of Appeal, arguing that the procedural rule constructed by the appellate court is procedurally and substantively flawed and unconstitutional. He contends that an appellate court erred in not reaching the merits of this appeal because of the constitutional questions raised. In his petition, Wrona urged the high court to take jurisdiction for issues "of immediate public importance," since Lehigh County court practices jeopardize citizens' rights to fundamental fairness, due process, and equal justice.
Mr. Hamoui filed a formal complaint with the PA Judicial Conduct Board, questioning the fitness for office of this jurist. Other than assigning a file number, the Board has not acted on this complaint to the best of Attorney Wrona's knowledge. Allegations against Judge Black include:
§ inappropriately blocking Hamoui from accessing court records;
§ violating Pennsylvania's Code of Judicial Conduct;
§ withdrawing his own recusal from the case;
§ allowing the criminal alteration of recorded court proceedings; and § subornation of perjury by an officer of the court.
Attorney Wrona contends that the audio tapes of the hearings were edited prior to being transcribed, and that the court knowingly harbors this criminal misconduct. Efforts to file criminal charges against the court are thwarted by the District Attorney's office.
Attorney Wrona argues that the Pennsylvania support guidelines represent one very obvious case of judicial activism, and that the court(s) intentionally disregard, misinterpret or otherwise misapply laws that offer protections for fathers in family law cases.
He further contends that the Pennsylvania State legislature has abandoned its responsibility to review and enact substantive law for child support.
The judicial branch gleefully stepped in to fill the void. Wrona believes that that family court and state legislatures are predisposed to favor mothers and to maximize child support awards to the detriment of fathers and children in second families. He notes that this is not an unusual occurrence nation-wide. He contends that one reason for this is because fathers are not galvanized as a political entity. They act individually, and therefore have no political "voice". You can help to establish political credibility for the purpose of leveling the playing field in family court.
Here is how you can contribute:
Because of the multiple irregularities in this court, including charges of criminal misconduct, Wrona requested the intervention of President Judge James Knoll Gardner. Judge Gardner has not responded.
Mr. Hamoui's efforts to file criminal charges against the court were twice turned away by the District Attorney's office.
Judge Gardner is currently on a "short list" of potential nominees to the U.S. 3rd Circuit bench according to newspaper reports. Pennsylvania Senators Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum are allegedly going to nominate him to this lifetime position.
Attorney Wrona is attempting to prevent this nomination for the obvious reasons. He contends that Judge Gardner is unfit for the federal bench in that "he tolerates criminal misconduct and irregularities" in the family court under him. If Judge Gardner is confirmed, Pennsylvania courts will have a "friend" in the district court, fathers will have another obstacle.
Both Wrona and Hamoui sent letters to President George W. Bush, Senators Specter, Santorum, Charles Shumer (NY) and Orrin Hatch (UT) of the Senate Judiciary Committee, urging them all to reconsider this potential nomination. Wrona believes that if hundreds of letters arrive on the desks of these Senators, they will act to "quash" the nomination of Judge Gardner.
He asks you to obtain a sample letter (available through this Hotline), and to sign it (and collect other signatures) then to send it to President Bush and each of the Senators named above. If you live outside of Pennsylvania, send it to the Senators from your state, as well. Only a cumulative "voice" will be heard. Your letter will represent another VOTE for an impartial and independent judiciary.
Attorney Wrona also believes that political activism must be initiated by contacting your State and federal representatives, urging them to reclaim responsibility for the child support guidelines in States where the guidelines are promulgated by Rule of Court.
We must demand that our State legislators review and vote on all substantive law matters in all States. Among other issues, delegating authority to the court(s) for the promulgation of substantive law contributes to the disenfranchisement of the electorate. If judges will write the law at the behest of the legislators, why do we even need legislators? Of what value is the Separation of Powers doctrine which has distinguished this government from all previous democracies, and made our system of government the idol for the rest of the world?
Wrona contends that promulgation of substantive law by judicial proclamation (edict) is an unconstitutional abridgement of the separation of powers. He believes that if challenged, the authority granted under the Child Support Enforcement Act will be found to be unconstitutional. Pennsylvania is one of several States that have enacted guidelines as 'rules of court' under authority of the CSEA. In other States, the guidelines are by legislative enactment, where it belongs, since Legislatures are subject to the will of the people.
Wrona supports returning the responsibility for enacting substantive law back to the legislatures. Children and Father's Rights proponents need to act cohesively to demand that their congressional representatives reclaim their authority as legislators.
Finally, Wrona urges all readers of this article to get involved, and to stay involved.
For a sample letter to the President of the United States and Pennsylvania elected officials on this matter, Click Here
