Former Luzerne County Judge Mark A Ciavarella Jr To Remain In Prison For 28 Years


 

Former Luzerne County Judge Mark A Ciavarella Jr To Remain In Prison For 28 Years.

End of.

Ciavarella, 67, was convicted of 12 of 39 charges for accepting kickbacks in exchange for funneling juvenile defendants to detention centers built by wealthy developer Robert K. Mericle’s construction firm and operated by companies controlled by former local attorney Robert Powell.

Ciavarella pleaded guilty on February 13, 2009, pursuant to a plea agreement, to federal charges of honest services fraudwire fraud and tax evasion in connection with receiving $2.6 million in kickbacks from Robert Powell and Robert Mericle, the co-owner and builder respectively, of two private, for-profit juvenile facilities of PA Child Care.

Mark A. Ciavarella Jr., whose hard-nosed zero-tolerance policy as a Luzerne County Juvenile Court judge fueled a kids-for-cash conspiracy that generated millions in kickbacks from a for-profit detention center,  is now on the other side of the bench. Ciavarella has drawn more media attention and public vilification.

via Government Sponsored Secret Family Courts.

Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Middle District of Pennsylvania

Friday, May 24, 2013
Abstract

justice.gov

The Court of Appeals found that one count of the Indictment should be dismissed because the statute of limitation had run on the offense.  

Ciavarella and his co-defendant, Michael Conahan, who also served as President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, were initially charged in January 2009. The charges were the result of a federal investigation of alleged corruption in the Luzerne County court system. The inquiry began in 2007 and expanded to include county government offices, state legislators, school districts and contractors in Northeastern Pennsylvania.  Conahan pleaded guilty to racketeering conspiracy in April 2010 and is serving a 17 year sentence.

The government also sought the forfeiture of approximately $2.8 million in assets allegedly acquired by the defendants through racketeering and money laundering. In response to the United States Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in United States v. Skilling, the 2010 Indictment specifically charged that bribes and kickbacks were paid to the defendants.

The jury also found that Ciavarella should forfeit $997,600, the sum he received from Robert Mericle, the developer who built the juvenile detention facilities.

State Court Judge’s Acts Not Immune From Conspiracy And RICO

Federal Court in Ciavarella “Kids For Cash” Case Issues Groundbreaking Ruling: State Court Judge’s Acts Not Immune from Conspiracy and RICO

 

Once Ciavarella was convicted, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court tossed out 4,000 convictions issued by the judge.

The more prisoners equated to more profits for the owners of the prison.

i

As a result, Ciavarella would sentence offenders with small offenses to months and, at times, years behind bars. He once sentenced a teen to three months in jail for creating a MySpace page that mocked her school’s assistant principal. Ciavarella also sentenced another teen to 90 days in jail after a simple schoolyard fight. rollingout.com

Judgments determining custody battles, care orders and whether children should be rehomed will in future be published unless there are “compelling reasons” not to.

via Landmark ruling ends secrecy of family law | The Times

In all cases where a judge authorises publication of a judgment, public authorities and expert witnesses “should be named in the judgment as published unless there are compelling reasons not to” and anonymity should not extend beyond protecting the privacy of the families involved, unless there are good reasons not to.

 

About towardchange

Your ‘Family Rights’ believing in the best interest of children. The issues which are important to me are, children and their families, the injustices to parents, which may occur, because of inadequate information, mistakes or corruption. This is happening every day. every minute and every second.
This entry was posted in Family Law and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.