pilchesky.compilchesky.com/.../2015/...comp.-fed-02078-11.2.15.docx · web viewat all times...
TRANSCRIPT
3:15-CV-02078-ARC-JFS
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Dr. Stephanie Tarapchak, an incarcerated person
By and through Joseph Pilchesky, also her legal “Next Friend”
Plaintiffs,
v. Jury Trial Demanded
Lackawanna County,
Joseph P. Kalinowski, Esq., First Public Defender,
Kathleen Kane, Attorney General of Pennsylvania
Robert LeBar, Senior Deputy Attorney General,
Lackawanna County Judge Michael Barrasse,
Lackawanna County Judge Vito Geroulo,
Senior Judge John Braxton,
United States Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.,
Patrick Lynn, Director of Lackawanna County Prison Home Detention Program,
Lackawanna County Prison Warden Robert McMillan,
Bernard Brown, Esq., and Nicholas Kravitz, Esq.
Defendants,
___________________________________________________________________________________
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1
Jurisdiction This action seeks to vindicate rights protected by Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and, 42
U.S.C. § 1985 and § 1986, relating to the conspiracy of two or more persons to deprive a person
of their civil and constitutional rights, to deprive a person of equal protection of laws, failure to
take action to prevent said deprivation when having the authority to do so, and conspiracy with
to rig a criminal trial to assure conviction. This Court has jurisdiction over this civil action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331(a) and 1343(a), (3) and (4). This Court has jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 to declare the rights of the parties and to grant all further
necessary and proper relief. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).
PARTIES
1. The Plaintiffs are Dr. Stephanie Tarapchak, a pre-trial incarcerated person, currently
incarcerated in the Lackawanna County Prison, with an address of 1371 N. Washington
Ave., Scranton, PA 18509, and shall hereafter be referred to as Dr. Tarapchak; and
Joseph Pilchesky, also as Dr. Tarapchak’s legal “Next Friend”, with an address of 819
Sunset St., Scranton, PA 18509 and shall hereafter be referred to Pilchesky.
2. The Defendant is Lackawanna County, a body politic and corporation created under the
laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with an office located at 200 Adams Ave.,
Scranton, PA, and shall hereafter be referred to as the County.
3. The Defendant is Joseph P. Kalinowski, Esq., First Public Defender of the Office of the
Public Defender, with an office located at 200 N. Washington Ave., Scranton, PA and
shall hereafter be referred to as Atty. Kalinowski.
4. The Defendant is Kathleen Kane, Esq., a Lackawanna County lifelong resident, duly
elected Attorney General of Pennsylvania, with an office located at Strawberry Square,
16th Floor, Harrisburg, PA, 17120, and shall hereafter be referred to as Attorney General
Kane.
5. The Defendant is Atty. Robert LeBar; a duly appointed Senior Attorney General of
Pennsylvania, with an office located at 1000 Madison Ave., Suite 310, Norristown, PA,
19403, and shall hereafter be referred to as Atty. LeBar.
2
6. The Defendant is Lackawanna County Judge Michael Barrasse; a duly elected and
retained judge of Lackawanna County, with an office located at 200 N. Washington Ave.,
Scranton, PA, 18503, and shall hereafter be referred to as Judge Barrasse.
7. The Defendant is Lackawanna County Judge Vito Geroulo; a duly elected and retained
judge of Lackawanna County, with an office located at 200 N. Washington Ave.,
Scranton, PA, 18503, and shall hereafter be referred to as Judge Geroulo.
8. The Defendant is Senior Judge John Braxton; a duly retained and appointed senior judge
of the Court of Common Pleas with an office located at 200 N. Washington Ave.,
Scranton, PA, 18503 and shall hereafter be referred to as Judge Braxton.
9. The Defendant is United States Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, with an office
located at 197 S. Main St., Wilkes Barre, PA and shall be referred to as Judge Saporito.
10. The Defendant is Robert McMillan; a duly appointed Warden of the Lackawanna County
Prison, with an office located at 1371 N. Washington Ave., Scranton, PA, 18509, and
shall hereafter be referred to as Warden McMillan.
11. The Defendant is Patrick Lynn; a duly appointed Director of the Lackawanna County
Prison Home Detention Program (House Arrest), with an office located at 621 Spruce St.,
Scranton, PA, 18503, and shall hereafter be referred to as Director Lynn.
12. The Defendant is Bernard Brown, Esq., the duly appointed defense counsel for Dr.
Tarapchak with an address located at 58 8th Ave., #60, Carbondale, PA, 18407, and shall
hereafter be referred to as Atty. Brown.
13. The Defendant is Nicholas Kravitz, Esq., with an office located at 425 Spruce St.,
Scranton, PA 18503 and shall hereafter be referred to as Atty. Kravitz.
Relevant Facts
14. From June of 2011 through June of 2012, Dr. Tarapchak openly and publicly participated
in, and financially supported, public protests regarding serious abuses to vulnerable adults
and children involved in corrupt Lackawanna County Family Court proceedings. She
appeared at numerous public protests holding signs and distributing informative handbills,
and financed the same. She appeared on various social media and Internet message
3
boards, and financed the same, which resulted in the exposure of vast corruption in
Family Court, which led to an FBI investigation of various Family Court judges and court
appointed officers, which resulted in the arrest of a Guardian ad Litem, Danielle Ross, and
the extensive reform of Family Court procedures after an investigation by the
Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts. In addition, she is the known paramour of
Joseph Pilchesky, a well-known, very successfully, longtime outspoken critic of
government and political activist.
15. On December 19, 2013, Attorney General Kane charged Dr. Tarapchak with eleven (11)
criminal counts stemming primarily from the management of her medical practice after a
year-long Investigating Grand Jury recommended the filing of said charges. The attendant
docket number is 14-CR-550.
16. On January 2, 2014, Dr. Tarapchak was arrested and placed in the Lackawanna County
Prison on $100,000.00 straight cash bail.
17. In February of 2014, The Office of the Public Defender, after initially denying counsel,
approved Dr. Tarapchak’s application for legal counsel. Atty. Kalinowski was assigned to
her criminal case.
18. On June 27, 2014, Dr. Tarapchak’s medical license was temporarily suspended by the
Board of Osteopathic Medicine, which she appealed to Commonwealth Court, which
reversed the Board of July 9, 2015 at 1280-CD-2014, citing violations to Dr. Tarapchak’s
due process rights.
19. On April 28, 2014, Judge Vito Geroulo modified Dr. Tarapchak’s bail from $100,000.00
straight cash to $25,000.00, 10% permitted. On or about May 5, 2014, $2,500.00 was
deposited with the Clerk of Court of the Criminal Division on Dr. Tarapchak’s behalf. She
was released and permitted to take up residency with Joseph Pilchesky.
20. On May 5, 2014, Judge Vito Geroulo issued an IP Order directing Dr. Tarapchak to be
placed in the Lackawanna County House Arrest Program.
21. Paragraph three (3) of the IP Order dated May 5, 2014, states as follows: “Pursuant to #61
P.S. Section 2141, if you fail to abide by all conditions set forth by the House Arrest
Programs or fail to return to Official Detention, a Bench Warrant will be issued for your
arrest and Escape Felony Charges will be filed. See Exhibit “A” at ¶ (3).
4
22. Paragraph four (4) of the IP Order dated May 5, 2014, states as follows: “This Order will
serve as a temporary Bench Warrant until Formal Charges for Escape are filed by the
County District Attorney’s Office. See Exhibit “A” at ¶ (4).
23. On July 17, 2014, Dr. Tarapchak, fearing a fix was in, filed a Motion to Supplement
Counsel, citing a laundry list of unethical and unprofessional conduct by Atty.
Kalinowski, asserted as ineffective counsel.
24. On October 23, 2014, Dr. Tarapchak appeared at House Arrest for the purpose of
explaining her whereabouts on the previous evening when the electronic monitoring
equipment indicated she stepped beyond electronic surveillance, at which time she was
subjected to extensive interrogation Director Lynn, without the benefit of counsel, even
after she repeatedly demanded that her counsel, Joseph P. Kalinowski, be summoned
before speaking, and, she was interrogated absent a Miranda warning.
25. On October 23, 2014, after Dr. Tarapchak was interrogated absent counsel, she was
arrested, handcuffed, taken into custody and re-incarcerated in the Lackawanna County
Prison by Director Lynn at the direction of the prosecutor, Senior Deputy Attorney
General, Mr. Robert LeBar.
26. On October 24, 2014, Director Lynn and L.C.P. staffer, CO Kelly, conducted a
Misconduct Hearing at the prison regarding allegations that the Defendant violated bail,
absent the presence of Dr. Tarapchak, because she requested counsel to be present for the
hearing, which was denied by Director Lynn.
27. On October 24, 2014, Director Lynn created and signed a document entitled,
“MISCONDUCT HEARING REPORT” (Report), within which it was recommended that
the “Defendant [Dr. Tarapchak] remain incarcerated pending action by Attorney General
Office”. The Report bears no docket number, file number, incident number, reference
number, commitment authority number, exhibit number, time stamp or certificate of
service. The Report was not addressed to any judicial officer of any court, or chief
administrative agent or agency. The Report does not include a reference to an Application
for a Bench Warrant, a Bench Warrant for bail violations, or a Return of Service. The
Report does not include any notice to Dr. Tarapchak of an appeal or review process. The
Report does not refer to or cite any legal authority which authorized or controlled the
Misconduct Hearing process, or authorized Director Lynn to conduct said hearing. The
5
Report was not entered into the record. Dr. Tarapchak was never served with a copy of a
“Misconduct Hearing Report”, either by Director Lynn or her counsel, Joseph
Kalinowski. The Report does not indicate that Dr. Tarapchak was given notice of the
Misconduct Hearing’s time and date, nor notice of a right to counsel, nor notice of the
right to call witnesses. See Exhibit “B”, the Misconduct Hearing Report.
28. On October 24, 2014, the Office of the Attorney General faxed a Motion to Revoke Bail
to the Defendant’s counsel, Joseph Kalinowski, and Judge Geroulo, within which its sole
request was that the Defendant’s bail be revoked. The Motion was not accompanied with,
nor incorporated or referred to, a Detainer. See Exhibit “C”, the motion.
29. At page page (3), ¶ (3), of the Motion to Revoke, the Commonwealth stated as follows:
On October 23, 2014, Defendant was terminated from the House Arrest Program and
returned to the Lackawanna County Prison, without naming the judicial officer who
deemed that Dr. Tarapchak had violated her bail conditions and terminated her from
House Arrest.
30. On October 27, 2014, via letter (Letter), Director Lynn advised Judge Geroulo, the
Probation Office and the Office of the Attorney General that he had:
a. Committed the Defendant to the Lackawanna Prison on October 23, 2014;
b. Terminated the Defendant from the House Arrest Program;
c. Conducted a Formal Misconduct Hearing and determined that the Defendant was
guilty of violating House Arrest rules;
d. Advised that her termination from the House Arrest Program was warranted and
justified; and
e. Advised that the Defendant should remain incarcerated.
31. The Letter did not include reference to an Application for a Bench Warrant for bail
violations, a Bench Warrant or a Return of Service.
32. The Letter did not cite or refer to the legal authority Director Lynn relied upon to conduct
the Misconduct Hearing, adjudicate the Defendant’s guilt and recommend and/or enforce
continued incarceration. See Exhibit “D”, the Letter.
33. The Letter bears no time stamp from the Lackawanna County Clerk’s Office, nor is it
addressed to a Lackawanna County Clerk’s Office, nor indicates that a Lackawanna
6
County Clerk or the Defendant received a copy, and it was not entered on the docket
under 14-CR-550. See Exhibit “E”, the docket sheet.
34. By October 27, 2014, a Monday, Dr. Tarapchak had not yet received a (72) hour Bench
Warrant hearing on her alleged bail violations, as required by 234 Pa. Code, Rule 536 (A)
(1) (b) and Pa. Code 234 § 150 (A) (5), (a) and (b).
35. Pursuant to Pa. Code 234 § 150 (A) (7), the Bench Warrant expired after seventy-hours of
the Defendant’s incarceration.
36. At no time was Dr. Tarapchak served with a Bench Warrant or a Detainer, and neither
commit document exists on the record. See Exhibit “E”, the Docket sheet.
37. After the Bench Warrant had expired, Dr. Tarapchak was not released from the custody of
the Lackawanna County Prison.
38. After the Bench Warrant had expired, Dr. Tarapchak remained incarcerated until the start
of her trial on September 21, 2015, and she remained incarcerated thereafter.
39. On November 7, 2014, a hearing was scheduled before Judge Geroulo on Atty. LeBar’s
Motion to Revoke Bail, which was continued when Atty. Kalinowski advised the Court
that Dr. Tarapchak wanted a Motion to Recuse Judge Geroulo filed. Judge Geroulo
ordered Atty. Kalinowski to file the Motion to Recuse, which he never filed.
40. On or about January 16, 2015, Atty. Kalinowski filed a Motion to Withdraw as counsel
for Dr. Tarapchak, having never filed a Motion to Recuse Judge Geroulo, as directed on
November 7, 2014.
41. On January 23, 2015, Judge Geroulo granted Atty. Kalinowski’s Motion to Withdraw as
counsel, and absent a Motion to Recuse, he recused himself.
42. On or about February 4, 2015, Judge Barrasse was assigned to preside over Dr.
Tarapchak’s criminal matter.
43. On or about March 23, 2015, Judge Barrasse appointed Atty. Bernard Brown as Dr.
Tarapchak’s new counsel.
44. On September 15, 2015, Dr. Tarapchak, by and through “Next Friend” Joseph Pilchesky,
filed a Rule to Show Cause and a Motion to Supplement Counsel to have Atty. Brown
removed, citing dishonest, unethical and unprofessional conduct, ineffective counsel, and
conspiracy with others to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of various constitutional rights. See
Exhibit “F”.
7
45. On September 15, 2015, Dr. Tarapchak, by and through “Next Friend” Joseph Pilchesky,
filed a voluminous Brief in support of Motion to Supplement Counsel to have Atty.
Brown removed, citing dishonest, unethical and unprofessional conduct, ineffective
counsel, and conspiracy with others to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of various constitutional
rights. A companion Motion to Appoint Counsel to represent Dr. Tarapchak on her
Motion to Supplement Counsel was filed on the same day. See Exhibit “G”
46. On September 18, 2015, Dr. Tarapchak, by and through “Next Friend” Joseph Pilchesky,
filed a Motion to Disqualify Judge Barrasse, citing his role in conspiring to deprive Dr.
Tarapchak of various constitutional rights. See Exhibit “H”
47. On September 18, 2015, as the direction of Judge Barrasse on the record, Joseph
Pilchesky filed in Brief in support of the authority that authorized him to represent Dr.
Tarapchak as her legal “Next Friend”. See Exhibit “I”
48. On September 21, 2015, Dr. Tarapchak, by and through “Next Friend” Joseph Pilchesky,
filed a voluminous Brief in support of her Motion to Disqualify Judge Barrasse, citing his
role in conspiring to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of due process, liberty and fair trial rights. See
Exhibit “J”
49. On the morning of September 21, 2015, without a hearing, Judge Barrasse denied Dr.
Tarapchak’s Motion to Supplement Atty. Brown as counsel. See Exhibit “K”
50. On September 21, 2015, at Judge Barrasse’s instruction, the jury was selected for the trial.
51. On September 22, 2015, the trial began, but Judge Barrasse was no longer presiding,
instead, the trial commenced with visiting Senior Judge John Braxton presiding.
52. On October 6, 2015, the trial concluded, resulting in Dr. Tarapchak being found guilty of
eight (8) of thirteen (13) charges.
53. The prosecution called approximately twenty (20) witnesses and presented hundreds of
documents, but Atty. Brown presented no witnesses and no documents on behalf of Dr.
Tarapchak’s defense, notwithstanding the fact that Dr. Tarapchak offered him a lengthy
witness list and thousands of documents he could have considered in her defense.
COUNT I
42 U.S.C. 1985 and 1986 claims as to defense counsel, Atty. Bernard Brown
8
Conspiracy with others to Deprive Plaintiff of Due Process, Liberty and Fair Trial Rights
and Deny Equal Protection of the Laws to rig a trial.
54. Paragraphs (1) through (54) are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full.
55. Dr. Tarapchak hereby incorporates by reference the entire contents of Exhibit “F”, her
Motion to Supplement Atty. Brown as Counsel dated September 15, 2015, and Exhibit
“G”, her Brief in support of Motion to Supplement Atty. Brown as Counsel dated
September 15, 2015.
56. At all times relevant thereto, Atty. Brown was an officer of the court and subject to the
Rules of Professional Conduct, thereby required to provide honest, ethical, effective and
professional representation to Dr. Tarapchak. See Rule 8.4
57. 42 U.S.C. 1985 and 1986 claims are authorized upon a showing of a conspiracy with two
or more individuals to deprive a person of his or her civil rights, or to deprive a person of
equal protection of the laws, or having the authority to do so, fail to prevent said
conspiracy or assist in the prevention of said conspiracy.
58. Dr. Tarapchak had due process, liberty and fair trial rights as guaranteed by the U.S.
Constitution under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Constitution at Article 1, Section 9, as relates to being arrested and
prosecuted by the Commonwealth, defended by counsel and judicially managed by the
Court.
59. For the reasons listed below, all of which are supported by the record, or an absence
thereof, the Plaintiffs aver that Atty. Brown provided dishonest, unethical, ineffective and
unprofessional representation to Dr. Tarapchak when he knowingly, willfully,
deliberately, intentionally, maliciously, and with severe indifference and prejudice to the
best interests of Dr. Tarapchak, engaged in a six-month long pre-trial conspiracy with
Judge Barrasse, Kathleen Kane, Atty. LeBar and Atty. Kalinowski to deprive her of her
rights to due process and liberty; to deprive her from participating in the preparation of
her defense; to deprive her of equal protection under the law, and to debilitate and
undermine her right to a fair trial, as to rig the trial and cause with certainty the
predetermined outcome of guilt at her trial, to include doing the following, in no particular
order:
9
a. Deprived Dr. Tarapchak of her rights to due process and liberty by and through
repeatedly refusing to file a Writ of Habeas Corpus citing that she never had a
mandatory Bench Warrant hearing within (72) hours of October 23, 2014, the day
she was incarcerated on alleged bail violations, and that the Bench Warrant had
expired on October 27, 2014, thereby requiring her immediate release, which
resulted in Dr. Tarapchak remaining incarcerated pre-trial for nearly one year, which
consequently resulted in depriving her of participating in the preparation of her
defense and deprived her of equal protection of the laws because Atty. Brown
withheld from her all discovery and prosecution exhibits in his possession, even
after she made repeated demands for delivery of the same so she could assist in the
preparation of her defense;
b. Deprived Dr. Tarapchak of her due process, liberty and fair trial rights and equal
protection rights under the law when he deliberately failed to advise her that her
right to a mandatory Bench Warrant hearing within (72) hours of being incarcerated
on alleged bail violations was violated, and that her right to liberty was then violated
when the Bench Warrant used to incarcerate her for an alleged bail violation had
expired after (72) hours. Atty. Brown’s first duty was to get his client out of jail, but
he did just the opposite, he acted to prevent her release and keep her in jail so that he
and the other conspirators could manage rigging her trial, which they accomplished.
c. Deprived Dr. Tarapchak of her due process, liberty and fair trial rights when he
deliberately concealed from her that it was only Patrick Lynn, Director of House
Arrest, having no judicial authority whatsoever, who determined that she violated
bail conditions after an illegal jailhouse hearing and should remain incarcerated;
d. Deprived Dr. Tarapchak of her right to due process and liberty when he argued in
opposition to her private and civilly filed Petition for Habeas Corpus (Petition) relief
that she filed on July 6, 2015, at 15-CV-4207, which she filed because Atty. Brown
repeatedly refused to file it since becoming counsel in March, 2015. At argument, he
repeatedly made false statements to the Court on the record, and in his filings, that
the liberty-related issue raised in her Petition regarding not getting a mandatory
Bench Warrant hearing within (72) hours of October 23, 2014 was already
presented, argued and disposed of by the court in her criminal matter, when he knew
10
was a false statement, which resulted in a dismissal of the Petition on August 5,
2015, and Dr. Tarapchak remained incarcerated up to and during her trial.
e. Deprived Dr. Tarapchak of her right to a fair trial and equal protection of the laws
by preventing her from obtaining and reviewing any and all of the discovery in his
possession that was provided to him by the Commonwealth, which was extremely
voluminous, and included the testimony from the Grand Jury, and thereby deprived
her of her right to participate in the preparation of her defense, which facilitated his
part in conspiring to rig the trial.
f. Deprived Dr. Tarapchak of her right to a fair trial, when, after getting permission
from the Court to hire a Private Investigator, he refused to use the Private
Investigator in any capacity in preparation of her defense. Dr. Tarapchak never
knew that Atty. Brown did not instruct the private investigator to do any work until
right before the trial.
g. Deprived Dr. Tarapchak of her due process rights and equal protection rights, more
specifically appellate rights to review, when he deliberately failed to place on the
record the ineffective counsel of previous counsel, Atty. Kalinowski.
h. Deprived Dr. Tarapchak of her due process, liberty and fair trial rights, and equal
protection rights when he deliberately remained silent during pre-trial hearings when
he had a duty to speak on behalf of Dr. Tarapchak’s right to liberty when Atty.
LeBar was asserting that the issues raised her private and civilly filed Rule and
Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief filed at 15-CV-4207 were already raised and
argued, when he knew they were not.
i. Deprived Dr. Tarapchak of her due process, liberty and fair trial rights when he
deliberately failed to deliver responsive pleadings to her that were filed by Atty.
LeBar in response to her private and civilly filed Petition for Habeas Corpus relief
docketed at 15-CV-4207, and the attendant Motion for Rule Absolute. The
responsive pleadings filed by Atty. LeBar were filed to the wrong docket number
and wrongly served only upon Atty. Brown as to avoid providing service to Dr.
Tarapchak as to deprive her of her right to know his legal positions and be prepared
for oral argument. Atty. Brown was not the attorney of record in Dr. Tarapchak’s
civilly filed petition for habeas corpus relief, so when he was improperly served with
11
Atty. LeBar’s responsive pleading, he knew why Dr. Tarapchak was not served. The
Certificate of Service did not include her. See Exhibit “U”, the certificate.
j. Deprived Dr. Tarapchak of her due process, liberty and fair trial rights, and equal
protection of the law rights, when he deliberately failed deliver to her a court order
issued on July 31, 2015 that provided notice to her that oral argument was going to
held on August 5, 2015, relating to her civilly filed Petition for Habeas Corpus
relief. As a result of Atty. Brown concealing the order from Dr. Tarapchak, she
appeared before Judge Barrasse on August 5, 2015, with no knowledge that
argument was going to occur on her Petition. That severe prejudice resulted in her
Petition being denied by Judge Barrasse. See Exhibit “M”, the order, which clearly
directed Atty. Brown to provide the order to Dr. Tarapchak.
k. Deprived Dr. Tarapchak of her due process, liberty and fair trial rights when, on the
morning of August 5, 2015, Atty. Brown participated in a pre-hearing conference in
Judge Barrasse’s chambers with Atty. LeBar and Atty. Nicholas Kravitz, at which
conference it became known to Atty. Brown that Atty. Kravitz was going to make a
surprise presentation and argument on behalf of Warden McMillan, the defendant
named in Dr. Tarapchak’s civilly filed Petition for Habeas Corpus relief. Atty.
Kravitz had not entered an appearance on the record or otherwise provided notice to
Dr. Tarapchak that he was going to appear and present argument for the Warden. In
addition, Atty. Kravitz hadn’t filed any answers or objections to her Petition for
Habeas Corpus relief. Atty. Brown concealed what he learned in the conference
when he met Dr. Tarapchak in the courtroom. The surprise appearance by Atty.
Kravitz became known to Dr. Tarapchak only after he gave his argument in
opposition to the Petition on behalf of the Warden. Atty. Kravitz’s argument falsely
stated that the issues raised in Dr. Tarapchak’s Petition for Habeas Corpus relief had
already been raised and argued by Atty. Brown in the criminal proceedings,
although he produced no documents in support thereof. Atty. Brown remained silent
while Atty. Kravitz presented his surprise argument. Dr. Tarapchak was not
permitted to respond to anything Atty. Kravitz presented.
l. Deprived Dr. Tarapchak of her due process, liberty and fair trial rights, and equal
protection of the law rights, when he deliberately failed to present numerous medical
12
files and documents during the trial that were provided to him, which, if presented,
could have impeached prosecution witnesses and assisted in her defense. For
example, he was in possession of hundreds of letters from Dr. Tarapchak to various
patients she had discharged for abusing prescriptions or selling them, among other
things.
m. Deprived Dr. Tarapchak of her due process, liberty and fair trial rights, and equal
protection of the law rights, when he appeared at the Lackawanna County Prison in
mid-July, 2015, after she filed a private civil Petition for Habeas Corpus relief, and
threatened her with prosecution if she ever files another civil action of any kind.
n. Deprived Dr. Tarapchak of her due process, liberty and fair trial rights, and equal
protection of the law, when he deliberately failed to provide her with a copy of the
Grand Jury testimony until the morning of the first day of the trial. Atty. Brown the
testimony in his possession for six (6) months, which testimony was required to be
provided to her in a court order issued by Judge Geroulo one year earlier as part of a
deal to by-pass the preliminary hearing.
o. Atty. Brown willfully, deliberately and intentionally failed to disclose to Dr.
Tarapchak his close personal and political ties to former disgraced public official
Kenneth McDowell, who was often exposed for his acts of corruption, theft and
incompetence by her paramour, Joseph Pilchesky, on his well-known politically-
charged website called dohertydeceit.com. Furthermore, Pilchesky was the Plaintiff
in a publicized Quo Warranto action to remove McDowell from the office of County
Controller, because he was illegally placed on the ballot. Had Dr. Tarapchak known
of Atty. Brown’s close and political ties to Kenneth McDowell, she would have
immediately filed a petition to supplement counsel.
p. Atty. Brown deliberately, intentionally and with absolute dedicated malice,
conspired with Judge Barrasse, Kathleen Kane and Atty. LeBar to deprive Dr.
Tarapchak of her due process, liberty and fair trial rights, and equal protection of the
law rights, by ensuring her incarceration pre-trial and during her trial. He took no
action to get her out of jail when her right to be released was clear. He knew that the
case against her was largely a document case, yet he intentionally withheld all of the
discovery documents and prosecution exhibits from her. He knew that her release
13
from incarceration would have facilitated providing him with documents from her
medical files to effectively prepare her defense and challenge the documents that the
Commonwealth was relying upon for conviction, yet he refused to file the necessary
document, a Writ of Habeas Corpus citing failure to get a Bench Warrant hearing
within (72) hours, to gain her release.
q. Deprived her of a fair trial, when, given the opportunity to withdraw prior to the
start of trial after being served with Dr. Tarapchak’s voluminous Motion to
Supplement Counsel, which elaborately detailed and articulated his unethical,
dishonest, ineffective and unprofessional conduct relating to his active role in a
conspiracy with others to deprive her of due process, liberty and fair trial rights,
Atty. Brown remained stubborn and silent and refused to withdraw as her counsel.
r. Deprived her of a right to a due process and a fair trial when Atty. Brown did not
have pre-trial meetings with Dr. Tarapchak to formulate and establish defense
strategies, or get her input regarding formulating defense strategies. Atty. Brown
never discussed with her a possible defense to any of the charges.
s. Deprived Dr. Tarapchak of a right to due process and a fair trial when Atty. Brown
did not solicit from Dr. Tarapchak her views and opinions of medical experts for the
prosecution, or for the defense. In fact, even though he had permission to hire a
proper medical expert and bring him in to testify, Atty. Brown hired a person
without the qualifications to render an opinion, resulting in no medical expert
appearing on behalf of the defense.
t. Deprived her of a right to due process and a fair trial when Atty. Brown did not
solicit from Dr. Tarapchak the names of any defense witnesses. She had a list of
many witnesses who could have undermined the prosecution’s case on many of the
charges and impeached the testimony of prosecution witnesses, but Atty. Brown told
her as the trial was approaching that he wasn’t going to call any witnesses, and he
didn’t. In fact, when it was time for Atty. Brown to present the defense, he
announced to the court that he was not presenting one.
u. Atty. Brown did not file a written response to Dr. Tarapchak’s Motion to
Supplement Counsel dated September 15, 2015, nor did he offer an oral explanation
for his unethical, dishonest and unprofessional misconduct to the Court when he had
14
the opportunity to do so at a final pre-trial hearing. His choice to not challenge or
dispute the allegations of participating in a conspiracy to rig the trial, as set out in
her Motion to Supplement Counsel speaks for itself.
v. On September 18, 2015, Atty. LeBar decided to file a response to Dr. Tarapchak’s
Motion to Supplement Counsel in an attempt to protect Mr. Brown, however,
instead of disputing any of the facts set forth to support how Atty. Brown
participated in conspiring to rig the trial, he offered a baseless argument that Dr.
Tarapchak was trying to delay trial. Atty. LeBar served his response only upon Atty.
Brown, who never provided Dr. Tarapchak with a copy.
w. Atty. Brown knowing lied to the Court at an April 10, 2015, pre-trial hearing when
he stated that he did not know that Dr. Tarapchak’s alleged bail violations were not
heard by a judicial officer. In fact, he was in possession of her entire file, which
reflected that her alleged bail violations were not heard by a judicial officer. No
Court order or transcript exists on the record to support that she appeared before a
judicial officer on the issue of bail violations. In addition, see Exhibit “D”, a Letter
from House Arrest Director, Patrick Lynn, to Judge Geroulo, within which he
advised the judge that he had determined that Dr. Tarapchak violated bail
conditions. Atty. Brown was privileged to a copy of that letter from Atty. LeBar.
x. Deprived Dr. Tarapchak of a right to due process, liberty and a fair trial, an equal
protection of the law, when at a pre-trial hearing held on April 10, 2015, Atty.
Brown advised her to admit to the bail violations alleged on October 23, 2014,
which she did. Judge Barrasse then told her that since she admitted to the bail
violations she has no right to a hearing. That was a clear hearing waiver trap set by
Atty. Brown and Judge Barrasse.
y. Atty. Brown knowingly lied to the Court on August 5, 2015, during argument on Dr.
Tarapchak’s civilly filed Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief, when he stated that it
was Joseph Pilchesky, her paramour, who was the person who called House Arrest
and reported her missing. In fact, the record from House Arrest, supports that no
such phone call was ever made. See Exhibit “N”, a report by Mr. Jack Werner of
House Arrest. Atty. Brown followed that up by appearing at the prison and screamed
at Dr. Tarapchak that she wouldn’t be in prison if not for Joseph Pilchesky reporting
15
her missing to House Arrest. Those actions by Atty. Brown were his effort to sever
Dr. Tarapchak from Joseph Pilchesky as her sole emotional and financial resource.
He was attempting to isolate her, render her scared, weak and vulnerable heading
into trial, so he could talk her into a plea agreement.
z. Atty. Brown knowingly lied to the Court on August 5, 2015, during argument on Dr.
Tarapchak’s civilly filed Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief, when he stated that he
had no knowledge of her filing a civil Rule and Petition for Habeas Corpus relief on
July 5, 2015, when, in fact, he was served with a copy on July 5, 2015, by way of an
email from her paramour, Joseph Pilchesky. See Exhibit “O”, the email.
aa. Deprived Dr. Tarapchak of a fair trial and equal protection of the law when he didn’t
prepare any defense for her whatsoever for six months due to pre-trial
ineffectiveness and unethical and dishonest misconduct in the interest of developing
and advancing his role in the conspiracy in play involving Judge Barrasse and Atty.
LeBar.
bb. On the morning of September 18, 2015, a Friday, a hearing was scheduled on Dr.
Tarapchak’s Motion to Supplement Counsel. However, instead of Judge Barrasse
holding a hearing and giving her, or Joseph Pilchesky, the opportunity to argue on
behalf of her Motion, and place her fears and concerns on the record, Judge Barrasse
only asked Dr. Tarapchak if, by filing the Motion, she was requesting to represent
herself. Judge Barrasse’s question seemed bizarre given the title of her Motion. She
answered in the negative. She was denied a due process right to a hearing on her
Motion and the intimidating message to her was clear; which was, if she wanted
Atty. Brown removed, Judge Barrasse would do it, but she’d be on her own.
Notably, Atty. Brown remained silent where he was confronted in open court with
her Motion to Supplement Counsel. He had an ethical obligation to either defend
against the Motion or withdraw, and he did neither, a clear violation to her rights to
a fair trial and equal protection of the laws.
cc. On September 19, 2015, Atty. Brown appeared at the prison and confronted Dr.
Tarapchak, angrily demanding that she withdraw the Motion to Supplement
Counsel. When she refused, he told her that if the Motion is granted, she’ll get a new
lawyer, but the trial will still commence on September 21, 2015.
16
dd. On September 20, 2015, Atty. Brown appeared again at the prison and again angrily
confronted Dr. Tarapchak with the same demand, but this time he threatened that if
he’s removed, she will have to represent herself and the trial will still start on
September 21, 2015. She again refused to withdraw the Motion.
60. Atty. Brown’s lies, deceptions and misrepresentations in open court during pre-trial
hearings, and within his pleadings, together with his outrageously ineffective counsel and
failure to provide honest, ethical and professional representation, was all part and parcel
of Atty. Brown’s submission to the will of Judge Barrasse and Kathleen Kane to partake
in a pre-trial conspiracy to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of her due process, liberty and fair trial
rights, and equal protection of the law rights, as to cause the result of a rigged trial and a
predetermined conviction-by-conspiracy.
61. If not for Atty. Brown’s dishonest, unethical and unprofessional misconduct as articulated
above, and set forth in Dr. Tarapchak’s Motion to Supplement Counsel dated September
15, 2015, and her brief in support thereof, as relates to his pivotal role in a conspiracy
with Judge Barrasse, Kathleen Kane, Atty. LeBar and Atty. Kalinowski to deprive her of
due process, liberty and fair trial rights, she would not have suffered the severe prejudice
of having her due process, liberty and fair trial rights deprived, and equal protection rights
deprived, all of which resulted in providing a rigged trial to a jury that had no idea what
had been going on for six months to rig the trial.
62. As the direct and proximate result of Atty. Brown conspiring with Judge Barrasse,
Kathleen Kane, Atty. LeBar and Atty. Kalinowski, Dr. Tarapchak suffered the severe
prejudice of having her due process, liberty and fair trial rights willfully, deliberately and
intentionally deprived in a vindictive and malicious manner to cause her severe harm and
injury in the nature of a rigged trial presented to a jury that had no idea the trial was
rigged for conviction.
63. At all times relevant thereto, Atty. Brown knew he was participating in a conspiracy with
Judge Barrasse, Kathleen Kane, Atty. LeBar, Atty. Kalinowski and Atty. Kravitz to
deprive Dr. Tarapchak of due process, liberty and fair trial rights as to rig her trial, and at
no time did he take any steps to prevent it, or aid in the prevention of it.
64. Atty. Brown had a legal obligation and duty to Dr. Tarapchak and the Court to report the
ongoing misconduct of Judge Barrasse, Kathleen Kane, Atty. LeBar, Atty. Kalinowski
17
and Atty. Kravitz to the Disciplinary Board and the Judicial Board, which he failed to do
in support of an effort to protect Dr. Tarapchak from the consequences of a rigged trial
and prevent the ongoing and repeated deprivation of her rights to liberty and a fair trial.
65. Notwithstanding the fact that Dr. Tarapchak filed a voluminous Motion to Supplement
Counsel and supporting brief on September 15, 2015, citing a laundry list of disturbing
acts of willful, intentional and malicious misconduct by Atty. Brown, all to her severe
prejudice in the nature of rigging her trial, resulting in her complete loss of confidence
and respect in his ability to represent her, he defiantly continued to represent her at trial to
ensure the rigged trial would produce convictions.
66. Atty. Brown knew that his outrageous acts of misconduct and ineffective counsel, and his
obvious participation in a conspiracy with others, was being monitored by the Defendant
through outside sources, i.e., all transcripts were ordered, yet he continued the misconduct
and ineffective counsel, and continued his role in the conspiracy, to ensure that Dr.
Tarapchak’s trial would be rigged to ensure conviction.
67. Atty. Brown’s misconduct and ineffectiveness was in no way, shape or form part and
parcel of any legitimate strategy to advance any element of Dr. Tarapchak’s defense, or to
otherwise bring the best possible closure to the case on her behalf.
68. Atty. Brown’s willful participation in a conspiracy against his own client was a violation
of his oath of office and to the constitutional process of justice, which was repugnant,
repulsive, revolting, disturbing and shocking to the senses.
69. His willful betrayal of Dr. Tarapchak’s trust was a mockery to the root concept of justice,
dignity and integrity. His six-month display of loyalty to an Attorney General’s and
judge’s want for a conviction-by-conspiracy by way of repeatedly depriving her of her
constitutional rights was itself a showing of depravation of dignity and integrity.
70. The unmitigated gaul of Atty. Brown to conspire with Kathleen Kane. Atty. LeBar and
Judge Barrasse to keep his own client incarcerated pre-trial when he could have obtained
her release, and keep her incarcerated during her trial, and denying her the vital
opportunity to assist in her own defense against a host of serious charges, and then
making it obvious to her that he was not going to call defense witnesses or submit
defensive documents as exhibits was evil, inhuman and vile.
18
71. As a direct and proximate result of Atty. Brown’s willful participation in the conspiracy
against Dr. Tarapchak, she remained incarcerated until the first day of her trial, remained
incarcerated during her trial, suffered being exposed to rigged trial, which she knew was
rigged before the trial began, and was then convicted of eight (8) of thirteen (13) charges.
72. As a direct and proximate result of Atty. Brown’s willful participation in the conspiracy
with others so deprive Dr. Tarapchak’s rights, she suffered the repeated deprivation of due
process, liberty and fair trial rights, and denial of equal protection of the laws. In addition,
Atty. Brown visited Dr. Tarapchak at the prison several times to discuss matters in her
case. After each visit, he sent her a follow-up letter, and within that letter he would make
false claims that they discussed matters that were either never were discussed or they was
completely opposite of how he claimed they happened during the visit. In one letter, one
of the most recent, he wrote to her that they discussed not putting on any kind of defense,
when, in fact, no such discussion took place. Contrarily, she was last minute providing
names and documents that he had to solicit from her over the previous six months.
73. Atty. Brown’s motive for participating in a conspiracy to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of due
process, liberty and fair trial rights was that Dr. Tarapchak was extensively involved with
Joseph Pilchesky in the exposure of vast corruption in Lackawanna County, particularly
the vast corruption that was exposed in Family Court in 2012, which involved naming
numerous law firms, judges, Guardian ad Litems and court employees, as well as various
residents with financial and political affluence, all of whom were somehow involved in
some degree of corrupt ion. Dr. Tarapchak’s ex-husband, for example, Alex Tarapchak,
Sr., was one such affluent person caught up in rigging custody cases and publicly
exposed, and who has close ties to President Judge Thomas Munley. In addition, one
attorney who was caught up in a publicized scandal with GAL Danielle Ross to deprive a
young mother of her maternal rights was Judge Barrasse’s sister, Nancy Barrasse.
74. In addition, Atty. Brown was conspiring with others to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of a full
and proper hearing on her Petition for Habeas Corpus relief to protect the conspiracy
that’s been going on at the prison between House Arrest Director Patrick Lynn and
Warden McMillan, where Lynn would illegally find alleged bail violators guilty through
illegal jailhouse hearings where alleged bail violators were deprived an attorney, and
McMillan would then illegally jail them without any judicial authority.
19
75. Atty. Brown had ample opportunities to abandon the conspiracy to deprive Dr. Tarapchak
of her due process, liberty and fair trail rights and opted to stay loyalty to the conspiracy.
He could have, at any time, prevented the conspiracy from developing or advancing, or he
could have assisted in preventing the conspiracy from developing or advancing, and her
opted to stay loyal to the man who appointed him, Judge Barrasse.
76. For the reasons articulated above, and as set forth in Dr. Tarapchak’s Motion to
Supplement Counsel dated September 15, 2015, and her brief in support thereof, in
tandem with the actions of Judge Barrasse, Kathleen Kane, Atty. LeBar and Atty.
Kalinowski, as more fully discussed below, she has demonstrated that Atty. Brown was
willfully and knowingly complicit in a malicious conspiracy to deprive her of due process,
liberty and fair trial rights, and equal protection of the law rights, to ensure that her trial
would be rigged to end in convictions, all of which was in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1985 and
1986.
WHEREFORE, as fully demonstrated above, Atty. Brown willfully conspired with Judge
Barrasse, Kathleen Kane, Atty. LeBar and Atty. Kalinowski to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of her due
process, liberty and fair trial rights, and deny her of equal protection of the laws, to ensure she’d
remain illegally incarcerated pre-trial, unable to assist in her defense, and to ensure a conviction-
by-conspiracy in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1985 and 1986. Furthermore, Atty. Brown failed to
prevent the conspiracy from developing and advancing, all to the harm and injury of Dr.
Tarapchak’s rights. Dr. Tarapchak requests judgment entered in her favor and any other award
the court deems appropriate. Dr. Tarapchak further requests punitive damages as the court
deems appropriate.
COUNT II
42 U.S.C. 1985 and 1986 claims as to Judge Michael Barrasse
Conspiracy with others to Deprive Plaintiff of Due Process, Liberty and Fair Trial Rights
and Deny Equal Protection of the Laws
77. Paragraphs (1) through (76) are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full.
78. Dr. Tarapchak’s Motion to Disqualify Judge Barrasse, and her brief in support thereof, is
hereby incorporated by reference. See Exhibits “H” and “J”.
20
79. 42 U.S.C. 1985 and 1986 claims are authorized upon a showing of a conspiracy with two
or more individuals to deprive a person of his or her civil rights, or deprive a person of
equal protection of the laws, as well as a showing of having the authority to prevent the
deprivation of such rights and failing to do so, or to assist in the same.
80. Dr. Tarapchak had due process, liberty and fair trial rights as guaranteed by the U.S.
Constitution under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Constitution at Article 1, Section 9, as relates to being arrested and
prosecuted by the Commonwealth, defended by counsel and judicially managed by the
Court.
81. Judge Barrasse appointed Atty. Brown to represent Dr. Tarapchak after former counsel,
Atty. Kalinowski, was the subject of an equally critical motion to remove him as counsel
for ineffectiveness and misconduct filed by Dr. Tarapchak. Basically, in hindsight, Atty.
Brown picked up right where Atty. Kalinowski left off in terms of participating in a
conspiracy with others to deprive her of due process, liberty and fair trial rights, and equal
protection of the law.
82. For the reasons set forth below, as fully supported by the record, the Plaintiffs aver that
Judge Barrasse knowingly and willfully, and likely as the architect, considering his
position of full and absolute power and control, conspired with Atty. Brown, Kathleen
Kane and Atty. LeBar to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of due process, liberty and fair trial rights
with the deliberate, intentional and malicious goal of rigging her trial to influence the
verdict and ensure convictions, to include the following, in no particular order:
a. On September 15, 2015, Dr. Tarapchak, by and through “Next Friend” Joseph
Pilchesky, filed a voluminous Motion to Supplement Atty. Brown as Counsel,
therein citing six months of unethical, dishonest and unprofessional conduct by Atty.
Brown to support her claims of ineffective counsel and his willful participation in a
conspiracy to deprive numerous civil and constitutional rights, and influence a
verdict by rigging the trial. See Exhibits “F” and “G”
b. On the morning of September 21, 2015, without a hearing or opportunity to be
heard, Judge Barrasse denied Dr. Tarapchak’s Motion to Supplement Atty. Brown as
Counsel (Motion) dated September 15, 2015, notwithstanding its extensive fact-
based content that clearly and shockingly demonstrated that the representation
21
provided by Atty. Brown for the previous six months was patently unethical,
dishonest, ineffective and unprofessional, clearly part and parcel of a conspiracy-to
convict scheme to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of pre-trial due process, liberty and fair
trial rights, equal protection of the law, and rig the trial through influencing the
verdict.
c. More outrageously, Judge Barrasse denied the Motion notwithstanding the fact that
Atty. Brown did not file a written response to dispute or challenge any of the fact-
based content, nor had he offered any objections to the Motion in open court.
d. Dr. Tarapchak filed a companioned Motion for Appointment of Counsel to represent
her in her Motion to Supplement Atty. Brown as counsel, which Judge Barrasse
completely ignored.
e. Judge Barrasse scheduled a hearing on Dr. Tarapchak’s Motion for September 18,
2015, a Friday, but he did not hold a hearing on that day, instead, he confronted
Joseph Pilchesky about what authority he had as a non-attorney to prepare and file
the Motion as a “Next Friend”. Judge Barrasse also asked Dr. Tarapchak if she gave
Joseph Pilchesky instruction to prepare and file the Motion to Supplement, and if
she was requesting to represent herself at trial, which she responded to the former in
the affirmative and to the latter in the negative. The Motion to Supplement Counsel
did not mention an alternative request to proceed with trial pro se. Clearly, Judge
Barrasse was threatening her with representing herself if he removed Atty. Brown.
The discussion was concluded when Judge Barrasse ordered Joseph Pilchesky to file
a brief by the end of the day to support the authority he had as a non-attorney to
prepare and file said motion for Dr. Tarapchak, which Pilchesky did. See Exhibit
“I”. Judge Barrasse said the issue will be resolved on Monday, September 21, 2015.
Atty. Brown remained silent at all times on September 18, 2015.
f. On September 19, 2015, Atty. Brown appeared at the prison and confronted Dr.
Tarapchak, and angrily demanded that she withdraw the Motion to Supplement
Counsel. When she refused, he told her that if the Motion is granted, she’ll get a new
lawyer, but the trial will still commence on September 21, 2015.
g. On September 20, 2015, Atty. Brown appeared again at the prison and again angrily
confronted Dr. Tarapchak with the same demand, but this time he threatened that if
22
he’s removed, she will be representing herself and the trial will still start on
September 21, 2015. She again refused to withdraw the Motion.
h. On the morning of September 21, 2015, Judge Barrasse entered the courtroom and
read off several orders, in one of which he denied Dr. Tarapchak’s Motion to
Supplement Counsel. He commented that he deemed the Motion dilatory and an
attempt to delay trial. He didn’t allow any input from either Dr. Tarapchak or Joseph
Pilchesky. Clearly, Judge Barrasse violated her right to a full hearing on her Motion
in order to best protect Atty. Brown and the conspiracy to rig the trial through
influencing the verdict.
i. Judge Barrasse had also previously denied a defense Motion to Dismiss three of the
charges against Dr. Tarapchak, which claimed that each charge mentioned was filed
well out of time. One charge at issue was a charge that she smuggled drugs into the
Lackawanna County Prison in her rectum, which charge was the lead part of every
media account relating to Dr. Tarapchak’s arrest since the day she was arrested, and
every media account during daily coverage of her trial. Judge John Braxton
dismissed the charge at the close of the trial for lack of evidence. Judge Barrasse
refused to dismiss the smuggling charge because it was intended for use as a
publicity prop to cause Dr. Tarapchak great prejudice, public humiliation and
embarrassment in the media, and to influence the verdict of the jurors. See Exhibit
“Q”, an assortment of news articles.
j. On April 10, 2015, a hearing was held before Judge Barrasse on a Bail Modification
motion that was filed by Atty. Brown. It was transcribed. The motion was supposed
to include the fact that after Dr. Tarapchak was incarcerated on October 23, 2014,
for alleged bail violations, but she was never given her mandatory (72) Bench
Warrant hearing before a judicial officer; and, for that reason, the Bench Warrant
had expired, thus she should have been released at that time. Atty. Brown left that
argument out of the motion, and instead, he only asserted that she needed to be free
to participate in preparing her defense, it was a discretionary issue, where the failure
to get a bench warrant hearing was an issue based upon law. Atty. LeBar chose to
raise the issue of whether she had been found in violation of bail conditions. He
23
asserted that she was found in violation, but he did not refer to a court order signed
by a judicial officer, who would have been Judge Geroulo.
k. At the same hearing Judge Barrasse inquired into whether or not Dr. Tarapchak had
a hearing on bail violations before a judicial officer, to which Atty. Brown falsely
stated he didn’t know, but Atty. LeBar truthfully said she had not. The truth was that
it was Patrick Lynn, Director of House Arrest, who determined she violated bail
conditions. At that point, Judge Barrasse asked Dr. Tarapchak if she committed the
bail violations. Atty. Brown then whispered to her that she should admit to violating
the bail conditions, and that’s what she did. Judge Barrasse then advised her that by
admitting to the violations, she’d be waiving her right to a hearing. She
acknowledged affirmatively, and Judge Barrasse found her in violation of bail
conditions, which, procedurally speaking, was a ruling on bail violations that
occurred approximately (164) ago, and (164) days after she was required to have
been given her mandatory (72) hour Bench Warrant hearing; and, it was (160) days
after the Bench Warrant had expired.
l. Procedurally speaking, Judge Barrasse, as a seasoned criminal judge, knew that Dr.
Tarapchak had a right to her liberty when it was established that she never had her
mandatory (72) hour Bench Warrant hearing before a judicial officer, and for that
reason, the Bench Warrant had long expired and she deserved her liberty. Judge
Barrasse knew she should have been released when it was clear that the Bench
Warrant had long expired.
m. Judge Barrasse knew that when Atty. Brown failed to raise the issue in his Petition
to Modify Bail that Dr. Tarapchak’s due process right to a mandatory (72) hour
Bench Warrant hearing was violated, and that not being released after the Bench
Warrant had expired her liberty right was violated, together with his silence on those
issues during the hearing, was providing complicity in a conspiracy to ensure that
Dr. Tarapchak would remain incarcerated. See pages 7, 8 and 9 of Exhibit “J”, the
Brief in support of Disqualifying Judge Barrasse.
n. On July 6, 2015, taking her right to liberty in her own hands, Dr. Tarapchak, by and
through her legal “Next Friend”, Joseph Pilchesky, filed a private civil action at 15-
CV-4207 in the nature of a Rule to Show Cause and Petition for Habeas Corpus
24
relief (Petition) demanding that Warden McMillan show cause why she should not
be released.
o. The Petition raised the issue that Dr. Tarapchak never had a mandatory Bench
Warrant hearing within (72) hours of being incarcerated on October 23, 2014 for
alleged bail violations, and that the Bench Warrant had expired after (72) hours,
therefore, Warden McMillan never had any legal authority to hold her. See Exhibit
“R”, the Petition. Warden McMillan was required by court order to file an answer to
the Petition within (72) hours. The Petition was served on Warden McMillan on the
morning of July 6, 2015. The appropriate Return of Service was filed. See Exhibit
“S”, the Docket Sheet for 15-CV-4207. The Rule and Petition were also provided to
Atty. Brown via email as a courtesy on the same day. See Exhibit “O”.
p. By July 16, 2015, when Warden McMillan did not file an answer or objections to
the Petition, Dr. Tarapchak filed a Motion for Rule Absolute against Warden
McMillan, which is the appropriate procedure when a party does not timely respond
to a Rule Returnable. A Brief in support of the Motion for Rule Absolute was filed
the same day. See Exhibit “S”, the Docket sheet for 15-CV-4207. Since Judge
Nealon signed the Rule Returnable as the Motion Court judge, it was submitted to
him seeking an appropriate hearing date. Judge Nealon forwarded it to Judge
Barrasse to have a hearing date assigned, as he presided over her criminal matter.
Judge Barrasse sent it to Judge Geroulo, as he was the issuing authority who issued
the Bench Warrant used to arrest and incarcerate Dr. Tarapchak, since he set her bail
conditions. Judge Geroulo sent it back to Judge Barrasse. Finally, on July 31, 2015,
Judge Barrasse set August 5, 2015, as the hearing date on Dr. Tarapchak’s Motion
for Rule Absolute, to be heard with a pending motion in her criminal matter. See
Exhibit “M”, the order.
q. The July 31, 2015, order directed Atty. Brown to serve a copy of the order upon Dr.
Tarapchak. He never gave her a copy. The order also indicates that Judge Barrasse’s
chambers sent Dr. Tarapchak a copy, which it did, however, the order was mailed to
her on August 4, 2015, which she received on August 6, 2015. See Exhibit “T”, the
envelope from Judge Barrasse’s chambers dated August 4, 2015. Dr. Tarapchak had
no way knowing about the hearing scheduled for August 5, 2015.
25
r. Back on July 22, 2015, Atty. LeBar filed a response to Dr. Tarapchak’s civil Motion
for Rule Absolute against Warden McMillan. He filed it at docket number 14-CR-
550, which is the number for the criminal matter, and not the correct number for the
civil number, 15-CV-4207, that appears in the caption of the Motion for Rule
Absolute against Warden McMillan. Atty. LeBar’s response was in the nature of a
Motion to Deny and Dismiss her Motion for Rule Absolute against Warden
McMillan. His Certificate of Service indicates that he served Atty. Brown and Judge
Barrasse, but not Dr. Tarapchak or Warden McMillan, who are the parties named in
the caption of her pro se-filed, civil Motion to Make Rule Absolute against Warden
McMillan at 15-CV-4207. Atty. Brown did not provide Dr. Tarapchak with a copy
of Atty. LeBar’s response. See Exhibit “U”, the Certificate of Service. Dr.
Tarapchak had no way of knowing Atty. LeBar filed a Motion to Dismiss her
Motion to Make Rule Absolute.
s. When Dr. Tarapchak was transported to the courthouse on the morning of August 5,
2015, she was completely unaware that Judge Barrasse was going to hold a hearing
on her Motion to Make Rule Absolute against Warden McMillan, and Judge
Barrasse knew it. When she arrived in the courtroom, she was also unaware that
Judge Barrasse, Atty. Brown, Atty. LeBar and Atty. Nicholas Kravitz were holding
a meeting in chambers. They all entered the courtroom from Judge Barrasse’s
chambers. Warden McMillan and Joseph Pilchesky were present in the courtroom.
Atty. Kravitz, it turned out, was there to argue on behalf of Warden McMillan;
however, Atty. Kravitz never entered an appearance on behalf of Warden McMillan
at docket number 15-CV-4207. Atty. Kravitz never filed an answer or objections to
Dr. Tarapchak’s Petition for Habeas Corpus relief, either, and he never filed an
answer to Dr. Tarapchak’s Motion to Make Rule Absolute that was filed on July 16,
2015. There was no way for Dr. Tarapchak to know that Atty. Kravitz was going to
appear at this hearing or know he was going to present an argument on behalf of
Warden McMillan relating to her Motion to Make Rule Absolute.
t. When the August 5, 2015 hearing started, Judge Barrasse immediately gave the floor
to Atty. LeBar, and not the moving party in the Motion to Make Rule Absolute, Dr.
Tarapchak. Atty. LeBar argued that the issues raised in Dr. Tarapchak’s Petition for
26
Habeas Corpus relief were already “argued ad nauseum and dealt with in a June 26,
2015 order”, none of which was true. Atty. LeBar did not refer to any order by any
judicial officer to support that Dr. Tarapchak had her mandatory (72) hour Bench
Warrant hearing on alleged bail violations, because no such order exists. When Atty.
LeBar finished speaking, Judge Barrasse did not give Dr. Tarapchak an opportunity
to respond. He didn’t ask Dr. Tarapchak if she somehow received a copy of Atty.
LeBar’s response to her Motion to Make Rule Absolute, as she was not named in his
Certificate of Service. Judge Barrasse did not ask Atty. LeBar how Dr. Tarapchak
was served with his Motion to Dismiss, either. The Certificate of Service indicates
that only Atty. Brown was served with the Motion to Dismiss filed by Atty. LeBar;
however, he was not counsel of record in the civil Motion to Make Rule Absolute.
Only Warden McMillan and Dr. Tarapchak were parties to her Motion, and neither
one of them were served by Atty. LeBar.
u. When Atty. LeBar was finished, Judge Barrasse turned the floor over to Atty.
Kravitz, who told the judge that it was his belief that the civil Petition for Habeas
Corpus Relief was not properly filed or served upon Warden McMillan, which
argument, in its nature, is a preliminary objection under R.C.P. 1028 (a) (1), relating
to jurisdiction and service, but Atty. Kravitz didn’t file any preliminary objections to
the civil Petition for Habeas Corpus relief. See Exhibit “S”, the docket sheet for 15-
CV-4207. Judge Barrasse didn’t ask him if he filed any preliminary objections
relating to jurisdiction and service, either. Atty. Kravitz then argued res judicata, or
that the issues raised in Dr. Tarapchak’s Petition for Habeas Corpus relief regarding
an expired Bench Warrant, inter alia, were already argued before Judge Barrasse,
but he didn’t support that argument with the showing of a Writ of Habeas Corpus
that was filed in the criminal matter by Atty. Brown at 14-CR-550 that had raised
those issues, because no such Writ exists. Atty. Kravitz’s res judicata argument was,
in its nature, an affirmative defense that is typically raised as New Matter, but often
shows up in preliminary objections. Atty. Kravitz didn’t file an Answer and New
Matter, or preliminary objections, to Dr. Tarapchak’s civil Petition for Habeas
Corpus relief. See Exhibit “S”, the docket sheet for 15-CV-4207. Judge Barrasse
didn’t ask Atty. Kravitz if he filed an Answer and New Matter and properly raised
27
the issue res judicata at 15-CV-4207. Atty. Kravitz had absolutely no right to appear
and present argument on issues he never raised in answers or objections to Dr.
Tarapchak’s Petition for Habeas Corpus relief. He didn’t file any answers or
objections at all. Judge Barrasse did not give Dr. Tarapchak an opportunity to
respond to anything Atty. Kravitz presented. He completely ignored her. Atty.
Brown remained silent during Atty. Kravitz’s presentation.
v. When Atty. Kravitz finished speaking, Judge Barrasse handed the floor over to Atty.
Brown. Judge Barrasse greeted Atty. Brown with a, “Good morning”, although they
just entered the courtroom together from his chambers. Atty. Brown falsely stated
that, “I filed an Omnibus Pretrial Motion addressing all of the issues including bail.”
The record, however, supports that Atty. Brown never raised the issues that Dr.
Tarapchak never had a mandatory (72) hour Bench Warrant hearing regarding
allegations of bail violations and that the Bench Warrant had expired after (72)
hours, requiring the release of Dr. Tarapchak. Atty. Brown did file a Writ of Habeas
Corpus on behalf of Dr. Tarapchak, but it did not include those issues. See Exhibit
“G”, the Brief in support of Motion to Supplement Counsel filed September 15,
2015.
w. At this time, Atty. Brown also stated on the record that he wasn’t cc’d on Dr.
Tarapchak’s civil Petition for Habeas Corpus relief, which can be proven otherwise
by Exhibit “O”, a copy of a July 6, 2015 email to Atty. Brown from Joseph
Pilchesky.
x. Without ever providing an opportunity to Dr. Tarapchak to respond to the statements
made by Atty. LeBar, Atty. Brown or Atty. Kravitz, Judge Barrasse granted Atty.
LeBar’s Motion to Dismiss Dr. Tarapchak’s Motion to Make Rule Absolute. See
pages 10 – 17 of Exhibit “J”, the Brief in support of Motion to Disqualify Judge
Barrasse.
y. Judge Barrasse eventually had an exchange with Dr. Tarapchak at the August 5,
2015 hearing, but he only confronted her about her civil filings by asking her if she
went over her filing of civil motions with Atty. Brown before she filed them, to
which she responded in the negative, since she filed them civilly and pro se. At that
point, Judge Barrasse told her they were hybrid representation. However, there was
28
no attorney filed of record in her civil filed motions, so they could not have been
hybrid representation.
z. Judge Barrasse granted Atty. LeBar’s Motion to Dismiss Dr. Tarapchak’s Motion to
Make Rule Absolute, citing that the issues raised in Dr. Tarapchak’s Rule and
Petition for Habeas Corpus relief were already raised, presented, argued and
disposed of in his Court, but he couldn’t cite any writ or motion that was filed in the
criminal matter that raised those issues, because they don’t exist.
83. Judge Barrasse’s actions and decisions during the hearings held on April 10, 2015 and
August 5, 2015, clearly illustrated that he fully understood that Dr. Tarapchak never had a
mandatory Bench Warrant hearing within (72) hours of being incarcerated on allegations
that she violated bail conditions. He also fully understood that the Bench Warrant used to
arrest Dr. Tarapchak on October 23, 2014, a Thursday, at 9:00 am, to take her before the
Bench Warrant issuing authority, Judge Vito Geroulo, resulted in her being incarcerated,
instead of being taken before the issuing authority. Judge Barrasse knew the Bench
Warrant expired as a matter of law after (72) hours passed with no hearing. He also knew
that there is no Bench Warrant on the record, nor is there an Application or Motion for a
Bench Warrant, nor is there a Return of Service of a Bench Warrant. He knew there was
no commit document on the record to keep Dr. Tarapchak incarcerated. Yet, all that
known to him, having full sua sponte authority, as well as a duty, to raise the issues
himself that Dr. Tarapchak’s right to a mandatory Bench Warrant hearing within (72)
hours of arrest on allegations of bail violations had been deprived, and that the Bench
Warrant had long expired, requiring her release, he still stayed silent and/or misdirected
the focus on the issues to avoid providing her with the proper relief, he release on bail.
84. At the April 10, 2015, hearing, Judge Barrasse knew that Atty. Brown and Atty. LeBar
knew the relief that was due to Dr. Tarapchak for never getting her mandatory (72) Bench
Warrant hearing. She had a right to be released from prison. This is where the conspiracy
crossed the line, or as they say in poker terms, went all i. Atty. Brown’s lies, and his
silence to advocate the issues for Dr. Tarapchak, and Atty. LeBar’s lies, along with Judge
Barrasse’s educated silence constituted a conspiracy to prevent her from enjoying her
right to her liberty at a point in time when she could have been rightfully released from
29
prison and began participating in the preparation of her defense with more than four
months left before trial. It wasn’t to be.
85. On April 10, 2015, when Judge Barrasse acknowledged on the record that Dr. Tarapchak
never had a hearing before a judicial officer on bail violations lodged against her on
October 23, 2014, and then he solicited an admission of guilt from her at the
encouragement of Atty. Brown, he knew he just illegally exchanged her right to be
released from jail for failure to get a mandatory Bench Warrant hearing within (72) hours
with a more illegal adjudication of guilt to keep her incarcerated. That procedurally illegal
exchange was clearly planned to bring a controlled closure to her rights that were violated
for not getting a hearing on bail violations within (72) hours. Judge Barrasse conspired
with Atty. Brown in a play on words to foreclose on Dr. Tarapchak’s right to liberty for
not getting a mandatory Bench Warrant hearing within (72) hours, thereby avoiding
having to release her, thereby avoiding providing her with an opportunity to participate in
preparation of her defense for more than four months before trial. This exchange deprived
Dr. Tarapchak of her due process, liberty and fair trial rights, and equal protection of the
law rights, to accomplish using all pre-trial time to rig the trial and guarantee convictions.
86. On July 6, 2015, when Dr. Tarapchak was forced to file a private and civil action against
Warden McMillan in the nature of a Rule to Show Cause and Petition for Habeas Corpus
relief, followed by a Motion to Make Rule Absolute after Warden McMillan failed to
timely respond to the Petition, and said Motion was submitted to Judge Barrasse for
consideration and disposition, he was fully and factually put on notice that she did not
have a mandatory Bench Warrant hearing within (72) hours and should have been
released when the (72) hours expired.
87. On July 31, 2015, a Friday, when Judge Barrasse issued an order setting August 5, 2015
as the date to hear Dr. Tarapchak’s Motion to Make Rule Absolute, and within that order
he directed Atty. Brown to provide a copy to her, he knew Atty. Brown was not going to
provide a copy of the order to her, and Atty. Brown didn’t. When Judge Barrasse mailed a
copy of the order to Dr. Tarapchak at the prison on August 4, 2015, he certainly knew she
was not going to have a copy of the order before August 5, 2015, which was a conspiracy
to deprive her of her due process rights to notice, and thus ensure that she would be
appearing at the scheduled hearing with no notice that her Motion was going to be argued.
30
All that known to Judge Barrasse, when the hearing commenced on August 5, 2014, he
did not ask Dr. Tarapchak if she had received a copy of the order, because he knew what
her answer was going to be. Negative.
88. When Atty. LeBar filed a response to Dr. Tarapchak’s pro se filed Motion to Make Rule
Absolute on July 22, 2015, and served only Judge Barrasse and Atty. Brown, Judge
Barrasse knew that Atty. Brown was not going to provide a copy to her. Furthermore, he
knew Atty. Brown was not the attorney of record in her private and civilly filed pro se
Motion. He knew that Atty. LeBar filed his response to the wrong docket number, since
the Motion was filed in civil court at 15-CV-4207 and Atty. LeBar filed his response at
14-CR-550, the criminal docket number. Judge Barrasse knew that Dr. Tarapchak and
Warden McMillan, the only parties named in the civil Motion’s caption, were not named
in Atty. LeBar’s Certificate of Service.
89. On the morning of August 5, 2015, Judge Barrasse, Atty. Brown, Atty. LeBar and Atty.
Nicholas Kravitz held a meeting in chambers before the start of the hearing. At this
meeting, they planned how the hearing was going to proceed in terms of what order each
attorney would speak, but no part of the plan included allowing Dr. Tarapchak to respond
to anything that each of the attorneys were going to say. Each attorney was provided all
the time they wanted to argue against Dr. Tarapchak’s Motion to Make Rule Absolute. Dr.
Tarapchak was not afforded one opportunity to respond. See North Korea.
90. On August 5, 2015, when Atty. LeBar announced that he had filed a response to Dr.
Tarapchak’s Motion to Make Rule Absolute and began to argue the reasons why it should
be dismissed, he didn’t raise an argument as to why the Motion should not be granted for
the failure of Warden McMillan to respond. Instead, he raised an affirmative defense in
the nature of res judicata asserting that the issues raised in the Petition for Habeas Corpus
relief were already raised and argued, which was a lie. Atty. LeBar never filed an answer
to the Petition for Habeas Corpus relief, where he should have raised that issue of res
judicata under New Matter, nor did he file preliminary objections and raise it there. Yet,
Judge Barrasse allowed him to raise the affirmative defense and argue it. Furthermore,
after Atty. LeBar raised his affirmative defense and argued it, Judge Barrasse did not give
Dr. Tarapchak an opportunity to respond. Furthermore, Judge Barrasse never asked her if
she ever received a copy of Atty. LeBar’s response to her Motion to Make Rule Absolute.
31
Clearly, Judge Barrasse conspired to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of her due process, liberty
and fair trial rights, and equal protection of the laws rights, in the furtherance of a clear
and obvious conspiracy to rig the trial by influencing the verdict.
91. On August 5, 2015, when Judge Barrasse permitted Atty. Kravitz to appear on behalf of
Warden McMillan, he knew that Atty. Kravitz had not entered an appearance on the
record, had not filed an answer or objections to Dr. Tarapchak’s Rule and Petition for
Habeas Corpus relief and had not filed an answer to Dr. Tarapchak’s Motion to Make
Rule Absolute. Judge Barrasse also knew that Dr. Tarapchak had no way of knowing that
Atty. Kravitz was going to appear and present argument in opposition to either her
Petition or Motion. Judge Barrasse knew he was permitting Atty. Kravitz to raise
preliminary objections and affirmative defenses to Dr. Tarapchak’s Petition for Habeas
Corpus relief in complete conflict with procedural rules and requirements. Judge Barrasse
did not give Dr. Tarapchak an opportunity to respond to any of Atty. Kravitz’s arguments.
This was a yet another willful act of conspiracy by Judge Barrasse to deprive Dr.
Tarapchak of her due process, liberty and fair trial rights, and equal protection of the laws,
in furtherance of a clear and obvious conspiracy to rig the trial by influencing the verdict.
92. At the August 5, 2015, pre-trial hearing neither Atty. LeBar nor Atty. Kravitz proved with
the showing of a court order that Dr. Tarapchak had a Bench Warrant hearing within (72)
hours of being arrested on October 23, 2014, for bail violations. Yet, Judge Barrasse
granted Atty. LeBar’s Motion to Dismiss her Motion to Make Rule Absolute, citing that
the issue of her never having had a Bench Warrant hearing within (72) hours was already
argued before him during previous hearings, and he knew it wasn’t. This was another
example of Judge Barrasse’s commitment to conspire with Atty. Brown, Atty. LeBar and
Atty. Kravitz to deprive Dr. Tarapchak’s of her due process, liberty and fair trial rights.
93. The purpose of Judge Barrasse’s complicity in the conspiracy with others to deprive Dr.
Tarapchak of her due process right to litigate the issue of whether or not she was given a
Bench Warrant hearing within (72) hours of being incarcerated for bail violations was to
further deprive her of her right to liberty, since if it was established that she did not get
said hearing, she would have had to be freed. Besides actually avoiding using the term,
“Bench Warrant hearing” when referring to the bail violation hearing, Judge Barrasse
knew Atty. Brown was avoiding using the term, as was Atty. LeBar. They all had to be
32
careful not to trigger Bench Warrant rules by using that term. Atty. Brown was making
references to Gagnon I and Gagnon II hearings, as if Dr. Tarapchak was on probation.
Judge Barrasse went right along with the theater, instead of correcting him or placing the
focus where it belonged on Bench Warrant laws.
94. Judge Barrasse was also protecting Warden McMillan and Patrick Lynn by advancing
ongoing conspiracy. If Dr. Tarapchak’s argument raised in her civil Petition for Habeas
Corpus relief were properly and fairy argued, it would have exposed that Warden
McMillan and Patrick Lynn have their own conspiracy going at the prison in the nature of
Lynn holding illegal bench warrant hearings, Lynn deciding if defendants are guilty of
bail violations, and McMillan incarcerating them, all without having any judicial
authority. In addition to political retaliation as a motive for the conspiracy, exposure of
the in-house prison conspiracy by Lynn and McMillan was also a motive to avoid giving
Dr. Tarapchak her due process rights to a hearing on her Petition for Habeas Corpus relief.
95. The result of Judge Barrasse’s complicity in the conspiracy with others to deprive of due
process and liberty rights manifested into Dr. Tarapchak losing her right to a fair trial and
exposed her to a rigged trial. With her incarcerated, Atty. Brown was able to keep all
discovery from her, all of her own files out of her reach, prevent her from contacting
defense witnesses, prevent her from preparing defensive strategies, prevent her from
preparing defensive questions for prosecution witnesses and enabling the opportunity to
get a good night’s rest during trial and appearing in a sound and stabilized mindset,
instead of being awakened in her cell at 4:30 am and being transported to a holding cell
for four hours with no access to documents or her support systems outside the prison
walls. In fact, Atty. Brown did not even give her supporters any information regarding
supplying street clothes for her to wear to her trial. If not for Joseph Pilchesky inquiring,
she would have appeared the first day of trial in prison garb.
96. In fact, by way of obtaining jailhouse daily conversations between Dr. Tarapchak and
Joseph Pilchesky, Judge Barrasse and his co-conspirators knew Dr. Tarapchak was aware
of the conspiracy as it was progressing, knew the trial was being rigged, and knew Dr.
Tarapchak was going to file this legal action if they continued to advance the conspiracy
to rig the trial, yet they proceeded with consummating the conspiracy right through to the
33
end to ensure she’d be convicted-by-conspiracy of as many charges as possible. In fact, as
the record supports, Atty. Brown did not prepare or present any defense. Nothing.
97. Judge Barrasse denied Dr. Tarapchak’s Motion to Supplement Counsel filed by her “Next
Friend”, Joseph Pilchesky, citing she could have prepared and filed it herself, but no one
knows better than he how inmates are severely oppressed and denied of adequate services
and office supplies at the prison’s incredibly inefficient, outdated law library.
98. Judge Barrasse was given the opportunity to end the conspiracy when Dr. Tarapchak filed
her pre-trial Motion to Supplement Atty. Brown as counsel for his role in the ongoing
conspiracy to deprive her of various rights, which motion detailed every step and element
of the conspiracy as it escalated over the previous six months, by terminating Atty. Brown
as counsel, appointing new counsel and continuing the trial, but he didn’t. Instead, he
dismissed the Motion to Supplement Atty. Brown as Counsel, and then, upon being
served with a Motion to Disqualify himself for taking part in the same conspiracy as Atty.
Brown was involved with, he recused himself from the case on the first day of the trial
and dropped it in the lap of visiting Senior Judge John Braxton.
99. Judge Barrasse knew that he had participated in depriving Dr. Tarapchak of her due
process, liberty and fair trial rights, and equal protection of law rights, which manifested
into depriving her of a fair trial and paved the way to rig the trial by influencing the
verdict, which resulted in guaranteeing that she’d be convicted, which she was.
100. The willful acts of participating in an ongoing conspiracy with others by Judge
Barrasse violated the most sacred principles of public trust and the Rules of Judicial
Conduct at Canons 1, 2 and 3, all to the harm and injury of Dr. Tarapchak.
101. Judge Barrasse’s knowing complicity to conspire with Atty. Brown, Kathleen
Kane and Atty. LeBar were deliberate and intentional acts to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of her
due process, liberty and fair trial rights, and deny her equal protection rights in an evil,
vile and malicious manner to cause her to remain incarcerated for seven additional months
prior to her trial and cause her to be exposed to a rigged trial.
102. Judge Barrasse had a sworn duty to protect Dr. Tarapchak from being a victim of
being deprived of her due process, liberty and fair trial rights, as well as a duty to prevent
it, and he knowingly, willfully and voluntarily, in an evil and malicious manner, failed to
protect her and prevent the prejudice and subsequent harm she suffered.
34
103. Judge Barrasse’s motive for participating in a conspiracy to deprive Dr.
Tarapchak of due process, liberty and fair trial rights for the purpose of rigging her trial to
ensure convictions was political retaliation. Dr. Tarapchak was extensively involved with
Joseph Pilchesky in the exposure of vast corruption in Lackawanna County, particularly
the vast corruption that was exposed in Family Court in 2012, which involved naming
numerous law firms, judges, Guardian ad Litems and court employees, as well as various
residents with financial and political affluence, all of whom were somehow involved in
some degree of corrupt ion. Dr. Tarapchak’s ex-husband, for example, Alex Tarapchak,
Sr., was one such affluent person caught up in rigging custody cases and publicly
exposed, and who has close ties to President Judge Thomas Munley. In addition, one
attorney who was caught up in a publicized scandal, relating to a conspiracy with GAL
Danielle Ross to deprive a young mother of her maternal rights, was Judge Barrasse’s
sister, Nancy Barrasse.
104. In addition, Judge Barrasse was conspiring with others to deprive Dr. Tarapchak
of a full and proper hearing on her Petition for Habeas Corpus relief to protect the
conspiracy that’s been going on at the prison between House Arrest Director Patrick Lynn
and Warden McMillan, where Lynn would illegally find alleged bail violators guilty at
illegal jailhouse hearings where alleged violators were deprived an attorney, and
McMillan would illegally jail them without any judicial authority.
WHEREFORE, as fully demonstrated above, Judge Barrasse willfully conspired with
Kathleen Kane, Atty. LeBar and Atty. Brown to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of due process, liberty
and fair trial rights, and to deny her equal protection under the laws, and to prevent the
conspiracy from developing and continuing, as to ensure her lengthy illegal incarcerations and to
ensure a conviction through a rigged trial, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1985 and 1986. Dr.
Tarapchak requests judgment entered in her favor and any other award the court deems
appropriate. Dr. Tarapchak further requests punitive damages as the court deems appropriate.
COUNT III
42 U.S.C. 1985 and 1986 claims as to Kathleen Kane and Atty. LeBar
35
Conspiracy with others to Deprive Plaintiff of Due Process, Liberty and Fair Trial Rights
and Deny Equal Protection of the Laws
105. Paragraphs (1) through (104) are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth
in full.
106. Kathleen Kane is the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
and as such, she had complete and unfettered access and control over the prosecution of
Dr. Tarapchak and the conduct of her subordinates.
107. 42 U.S.C. 1985 and 1986 claims are authorized upon a showing of a conspiracy
with two or more individuals to deprive a person of his or her civil rights, or deprive a
person of equal protection of the laws, as well as a showing of having the authority to
prevent the deprivation and failing to do so, or having the power to assist and failing to
assist.
108. Dr. Tarapchak had due process, liberty and fair trial rights as guaranteed by the
U.S. Constitution under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Constitution at Article 1, Section 9, as relates to being arrested and
prosecuted by the Commonwealth, defended by counsel and judicially managed by the
Court.
109. Kathleen Kane had a duty and obligation as Attorney General of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to ensure that none of her subordinates, but specifically
Atty. LeBar, was participating in any way in a conspiracy with Judge Michael Barrasse,
Judge Vito Geroulo, Atty. Brown, Atty. Kalinowski and House Arrest Director, Patrick
Lynn to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of any of her rights to due process, liberty and a fair trial,
and equal protection of the laws.
110. The prosecution of Dr. Tarapchak involved a host of serious charges filed by
Kathleen Kane, which, if convicted of even the most serious, would likely result in a long
prison term.
111. The prosecution of Dr. Tarapchak was at all times a high profile case that
garnered the attention of media in several counties. When she was charged, all media
from several counties published articles and/or televised the arrest at various hours of the
day, and thereafter covered the trial on a daily basis.
36
112. Kathleen Kane knew, or should have known, that several of the charges filed
against Dr. Tarapchak were filed well beyond the statute of limitations, to include a false
charge of her smuggling drugs into the Lackawanna County Prison in her rectum, which
was filed for the sole purpose of sensationalizing the adverse publicity with an extremely
negative effect upon her reputation.
113. Kathleen Kane knew, or should have known, that the strategy Atty. LeBar was
applying to prosecute Dr. Tarapchak included his willful participation in a conspiracy
with Judge Barrasse, Judge Geroulo, Atty. Brown, Atty. Kalinowski and Patrick Lynn for
the distinct purpose of depriving Dr. Tarapchak of her due process, liberty and fair trial
rights, and equal protection of the laws, to rig the trial and assure convictions.
114. On October 23, 2014, at approximately 9:00 am, Hose Arrest Director Patrick
Lynn notified Atty. LeBar by phone that Dr. Tarapchak appeared to have violated bail
conditions, at which time Atty. LeBar instructed him to incarcerate her absent a proper
Bench Warrant from Judge Vito Geroulo, who was the presiding judge in the case, who
had set her bail conditions. Atty. LeBar knew that a Bench Warrant was required to arrest
Dr. Tarapchak in order to take her before the issuing authority, Judge Geroulo, for a bail
violation hearing within (72) hours, or if the issuing authority was not available, then to be
able to incarcerate her until he was available within (72) hours. Atty. LeBar never made
application for a Bench Warrant. He knew that no other enforcement officer applied for
one. When Dr. Tarapchak was arrested without a Bench Warrant, he knew she had been
illegally arrested and incarcerated. At this point in time, the conspiracy began between
Atty. LeBar and Patrick Lynn to incarcerate Dr. Tarapchak without a Bench Warrant. Dr.
Tarapchak had a right to be served with a Bench Warrant to inform her of the charges
against her, which right was violated by Atty. LeBar and Lynn.
115. Atty. LeBar knew that Dr. Tarapchak had a right to a Bench Warrant hearing on
alleged bail violations within (72) hours of arrest on October 23, 2014. Atty. LeBar was in
contact with Atty. Kalinowski during and after the arrest and incarceration of Dr.
Tarapchak, so he knew that Atty. Kalinowski was not going ensure that she got her
mandatory hearing within (72) hours, or anytime thereafter. Atty. LeBar knew it was
going to be Patrick Lynn, having no authority as a judicial officer whatsoever who would
determine, in a prison hearing setting, with a prison staff member, CO Kelly, that Dr.
37
Tarapchak violated bail violations and would remain incarcerated well into the future.
Atty. LeBar knew that Judge Geroulo was given written notice by Patrick Lynn advising
him that Lynn had determined that Dr. Tarapchak violated bail conditions. Atty. LeBar
was copied in on the letter. See Exhibit “D”, the letter from Patrick Lynn to Judge
Geroulo dated October 24, 2014. Atty. LeBar knew that Dr. Tarapchak was subjected to
completely illegal actions by Patrick Lynn to arrest her, find her in violation of bail
conditions and commit her to indefinite incarceration, and he stayed silent to the Court.
116. Atty. LeBar knew that when Dr. Tarapchak didn’t get a mandatory bail violation
hearing within (72) hours, or within a reasonable time thereafter, she had a right at law to
be released from the custody of the Lackawanna County Prison. See Pa. Code 234 § 150,
et seq. and § 536. That being known, he stayed silent to the Court.
117. Atty. LeBar knew that Atty. Kalinowski, Dr. Tarapchak’s appointed counsel of
record, who had already been served with a motion to remove him as counsel for gross
ineffectiveness and incompetence, did not take action to seek her release when she was
accused of bail violations on October 23, 2014, and that he was not going to take any
action to seek her release after (72) hours had passed, or for that matter, even after (72)
days had passed
118. On November 7, 2014, Dr. Tarapchak, Atty. LeBar and Atty. Kalinowski
appeared in front of Judge Geroulo for a hearing on Atty. LeBar’s Motion to Revoke Bail.
At this hearing, Atty. LeBar was silent on the fact that Dr. Tarapchak did not get a bail
violation hearing within (72) hours, and he was silent on the fact that it was Patrick Lynn
who decided that she violated her bail conditions, and not a judicial officer. At this
hearing, Atty. LeBar, Atty. Kalinowski and Judge Geroulo knew she did not have a
mandatory bail violation hearing before a judicial officer within (72) hours and they all
remained silent, and the conspiracy to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of various civil rights began
in orchestrated silence in Judge Geroulo’s courtroom.
119. After the November 7, 2014 hearing was continued on Atty. LeBar’s Motion to
Revoke Dr. Tarapchak’s bail, he never sought another hearing on his motion. The record
is void of any order revoking he bail. He didn’t have to get another hearing. He knew she
was never going to get out of prison before her trial as long as she had Atty. Kalinowski
as appointed counsel, or his equivalent, because Atty. Kalinowski was never going to file
38
a Writ of Habeas Corpus to get her out of confinement based upon the fact that she never
had a mandatory bail violation hearing within (72) hours before a judicial officer and that
the Bench Warrant, which never existed in the first place, had expired as a matter of law.
120. Atty. LeBar knew that newly appointed counsel, Atty. Brown, who became Dr.
Tarapchak’s counsel on or about March 23, 2015 when Atty. Kalinowski was removed
from the case for grossly ineffective counsel and ethical misconduct, was also not going to
take action to seek her release after she did not get a mandatory hearing on bail violations
within (72) hours, because Atty. Brown, a former employee of the Public Defender
Office, was on board with the conspiracy to keep her incarcerated, deprive her of her due
process, liberty and fair trial rights and thereby rig the trial to assure convictions.
121. Atty. LeBar knew that Warden McMillan, who was illegally holding Dr.
Tarapchak in his prison without so much as a Bench Warrant, was also on board with a
conspiracy to keep her incarcerated for as long as possible. Otherwise, Warden McMillan
would not have kept Dr. Tarapchak incarcerated after the (72) hour period had passed
when she was required to have a mandatory bench warrant hearing on bail violations, at
which time a Bench Warrant expired, clearing the way to release her.
122. Dr. Tarapchak avers that since she was incarcerated on October 23, 2015, on
allegations of violating bail, it was the willful and malicious intent of Kathleen Kane,
Atty. LeBar, Atty, Kalinowski, Atty. Brown, Judge Geroulo, Judge Barrasse, Warden
McMillan and Patrick Lynn to keep her incarcerated up to and during her trial to facilitate
the deprivation of her of due process and liberty rights as to deprive her of a fair
opportunity to participate in her own defense, and thereafter expose her to a rigged trial
and assured convictions.
123. In fact, when Dr. Tarapchak was free on bail between May 2, 2014, and October
23, 2014, she had initially obtained permission from House Arrest Director, Patrick Lynn,
to travel from Scranton to her medical office in Ashland a few times to access the
thousands of files and records located there to begin the process of reviewing them and
preparing her defense. However, after only a few visits, Atty. LeBar directed Patrick Lynn
to stop allowing her to visit her medical office, which he did. Furthermore, Atty. LeBar
also directed Patrick Lynn to forbid her from travelling to Ashland to visit her extremely
ill, elderly parents, who both needed her attention, which he did. In addition, when her
39
longtime paramour, Joseph Pilchesky, had to undergo emergency open-heart by-pass
surgery in September, 2014, Atty. LeBar also directed Patrick Lynn to forbid her from
visiting him at the hospital post-surgery, and he did that, too. Ironically, at the beginning
of trial, when Dr. Tarapchak found out her attorney had done nothing in her defense in
terms of gathering and reviewing medical records and files, she asked the judge for a
furlough to obtain various files she had already gathered and organized, which Atty.
LeBar objected to, citing that she had the entire time she was out on bail to obtain records
and files.
124. It was when a Petition to Modify Bail was filed by Atty. Brown on March 30,
2015, that the conspiracy to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of her due process and liberty rights
regarding the issue that she never had a mandatory bail violation hearing within (72)
hours by a judicial officer ramped up the demands on the conspiracy. At this point, there
had to be an appearance by Atty. Brown that he was attempting to get his client out of
prison, but Dr. Tarapchak would be disappointed. She expected Atty. Brown to file a Writ
of Habeas Corpus, citing her right to liberty for not getting a mandatory bail violation
hearing within (72) hours, but instead, Atty. Brown filed a toothless Petition to Modify
Bail and made no mention therein that she did not get a mandatory bail violation hearing
in front of a judicial officer within (72) hours. In fact, when he cited the bail history in his
petition, he completely omitted that she was incarcerated on October 23, 2014 on bail
violations. See Exhibit “V”, the Petition to Modify Bail. In every motion or petition filed
by Atty. Brown thereafter, which included a citation of her bail history, he repeatedly
omitted that she was incarcerated on October 23, 2014 for bail violations. He repeatedly
omitted it because he couldn’t include the name of a judicial officer who found her in
violation of bail, or show she had a mandatory bail violation hearing within (72) hours.
The Petition to Modify Bail was ultimately denied.
125. On April 2, 2015, Atty. Brown filed an Omnibus Motion and Brief in support
thereof. His Brief contained a Writ of Habeas Corpus, but it also did not cite that Dr.
Tarapchak’s right to a mandatory bail violation hearing within (72) hours was violated,
thus requiring her release. See Exhibit “G”
126. On April 7, 2015, Atty. LeBar filed his response to Atty. Brown’s Petition to
Modify Bail. Where Atty. Brown completely omitted any reference to Dr. Tarapchak’s
40
arrest on October 23, 2014, for bail violations in his Petition, Atty. LeBar made reference
to it, but barely. He limited his reference thereto by only stating that she violated house
arrest and was incarcerated. He made no mention of an application for a Bench Warrant, a
Bench Warrant, a Return of Service of a Bench Warrant, a Bench Warrant hearing on bail
violations before a judicial officer, any court orders that deemed her in violation of bail
conditions, or the letter that Patrick Lynn sent to Judge Geroulo advising him that he
decided that she violated bail and should remain incarcerated. See Exhibit “D”
127. On April 10, 2015, a hearing took place on Atty. Brown’s Petition to Modify Bail
and Atty. LeBar’s response thereto before Judge Barrasse. Atty. Brown’s Petition asked
for a bail modification to release Dr. Tarapchak to allow her an opportunity to participate
in the preparation of her defense. Both Atty. Brown and Atty. LeBar stated in court that
Dr. Tarapchak was jailed for bail violations on October 23, 2014, but neither one
mentioned that she never had a mandatory bail violation hearing within (72) hours. Judge
Barrasse, however, inquired if she was judged in violation of her bail conditions by a
judicial officer. Atty. Brown falsely responded that he didn’t know. (The record speaks
for itself) Atty. LeBar responded truthfully that there was no hearing before a judicial
officer, but he left out that it was House Arrest Director, Patrick Lynn, who determined
that she was in violation of bail conditions; that Lynn notified Judge Geroulo in writing
that he made such determination autonomously; that he had had a copy of the notification
since October 24, 2014, (Exhibit “D”) and that Lynn recommended that she stay
incarcerated, and she did. Atty. LeBar may not have had an obligation to present an
argument for Dr. Tarapchak on the issue of her liberty for not getting the mandatory bail
violation hearing within (72) hours, but he had a duty to tell the whole truth regarding the
circumstances surrounding Dr. Tarapchak’s re-incarceration on October 23, 2014 on bail
violations once he opened the door. He breached that duty out of his loyalty to the
conspiracy with Atty. Brown and Judge Barrasse to keep the issue off the record that she
never had a bail violation hearing within (72) hours and that the Bench Warrant had
expired after (72) hours. For all they all knew, Dr. Tarapchak didn’t know herself that she
had a right to her liberty after not getting a mandatory bench warrant hearing within (72)
hours of incarceration. Atty. LeBar’s silence on the full truth conspired with Atty.
Brown’s silence on speaking any of the truth in order to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of her
41
right to due process, liberty and a fair trial. If either Atty. Brown or Atty. LeBar stated on
the record before Judge Barrasse that she did not have the mandatory bench warrant
hearing within (72) hours and cited the law that required it, Judge Barrasse would have
had to release her from prison. Then again, Judge Barrasse already knew it, and nothing
stopped him from addressing it, except to play his own role in the conspiracy to keep her
locked up pre-trial and during her trial so that the conspiracy could mature into a rigged
trial and convictions.
128. On July 6, 2015, after suffering total disgust and frustration with Atty. Brown for
not filing a Writ of Habeas Corpus that raised the issues that she never had her mandatory
Bench Warrant hearing within (72) hours of being arrested and incarcerated on October
23, 2014 for alleged bail violations, and that, by operation of law, the Bench Warrant used
to arrest her had expired, and that she had a right at law to be released, Dr. Tarapchak took
the extraordinary measure of filing her own civil Rule to Show Cause and Petition for
Habeas Corpus relief at 15-CV-4207, and she raised those issues in an attempt to be
released so she could have the fair opportunity to participate in the preparation of her
defense. See Exhibit “R”, the Rule and Petition. Warden McMillan, appropriately, was the
named defendant. A copy was served upon Atty. Brown on July 6, 2015, via email; see
Exhibit “O”, although he would later deny any knowledge of the filing at a hearing held
on August 5, 2015.
129. On July 16, after Warden McMillan failed to timely respond to the Rule and
Petition for Habeas Corpus relief, Dr. Tarapchak appropriately filed a Motion to Make
Rule Absolute at 15-CV-4207. See Exhibit “S”, the docket sheet.
130. Warden McMillan, although properly served on July 6, 2015, with Dr.
Tarapchak’s Rule and Petition for Habeas Corpus relief, failed to file an answer or
objections thereto in a timely manner. The Rule required an answer within three days. The
Petition sought declaration of any right or authority that Warden McMillan had that
showed he had the authority to hold Dr. Tarapchak in prison since October 27, 2014,
since, by operation of law the Bench Warrant that confined her had expired at that time.
Warden McMillan only had to produce the commit document he relied upon to keep her
detained to defeat the Petition. He didn’t. He couldn’t. No such commit document exists
42
on the record. Warden McMillan didn’t respond to the Motion to Make Rule Absolute,
either. See Exhibit “S”, the docket sheet.
131. On July 22, 2015, Atty. LeBar filed a response to Dr. Tarapchak’s Motion to
Make Rule Absolute in the nature of a Motion to Deny and Dismiss Dr. Tarapchak’s
Petition for Habeas Corpus relief. He asserted that the issues raised in her Petition for
Habeas Corpus relief had already been raised, argued and disposed of by Judge Barrasse.
He didn’t append any attendant order by any judicial officer dated between October 23
and October 27, 2014 to support she had a mandatory bail violation hearing within (72)
hours, or that the Bench Warrant had not expired. He didn’t append a Bench Warrant,
court order or detainer to support that Warden McMillan had the authority to hold her
since October 23, 2014, or anytime thereafter.
132. Dr. Tarapchak and Warden McMillan are the only two parties named in her civil
Petition for Habeas Corpus relief and subsequent Motion to Make Rule Absolute at 15-
CV-4207; however, Atty. LeBar didn’t serve either one of them with his response dated
July 22, 2015. Instead, he served Atty. Brown, who was not counsel of record, since the
civil Petition was filed pro se, and he served Judge Barrasse, which was appropriate. He
also didn’t file his response at 15-CV-4207. Instead, he filed at 14-CR-550, the criminal
docket. The significance of that is that Joseph Pilchesky, Dr. Tarapchak’s outside resource
for whatever she needs, was monitoring the docket at 15-CV-4207 for any responsive
filings in the nature of an answer or objections by anyone. Atty. Brown never served Dr.
Tarapchak with a copy of Atty. LeBar’s Motion to Dismiss, but Atty. LeBar knew Atty.
Brown wouldn’t serve her, thus the conspiracy continued to evolve.
133. On July 31, 2015, a Friday, Judge Barrasse issued an order setting August 5, 2015
to hear argument on Dr. Tarapchak’s Motion to Make Rule Absolute. See Exhibit “M”.
The order did not indicate argument would be held on her Petition for Habeas Corpus
Relief. That short period of time between the order and the hearing date did not give Dr.
Tarapchak time to subpoena Warden McMillan, which she would have done. In fact, as
discussed above, Judge Barrasse sent her a copy of the order on August 4, 2015. The order
also directed Atty. Brown to serve her a copy, which he did not do. Dr. Tarapchak did not
know that a hearing was going to be held on her Petition and Motion until she arrived at
43
the courtroom and the proceedings began. It was a total ambush set by Judge Barrasse,
Atty. Brown and Atty. LeBar to advance their conspiracy.
134. Prior to the August 5, 2015 hearing, Atty. Brown and Atty. LeBar, along with
Atty. Nicholas Kravitz, held a meeting with Judge Barrasse in his chambers. They all
entered the courtroom from chambers. Atty. Kravitz, not having entered an appearance at
either 14-CR-550 or 15-CV-4207, and not having filed an answer or objections to either
Dr. Tarapchak’s Petition for Habeas Corpus relief of Motion to Make Rule Absolute,
made a lengthy argument on behalf of Warden McMillan, much to the shock of Dr.
Tarapchak, who was unaware that he was going to appear and present an argument. As
already set forth above, Judge Barrasse did not permit Dr. Tarapchak to respond to Atty.
Kravitz’s presentation. Warden McMillan was in the courtroom but he wasn’t called to
the stand by either Atty. Kravitz or Atty. LeBar to explain what authority he had to keep
Dr. Tarapchak jailed since October 23, 2015. Of course, since Dr. Tarapchak was frozen
out of all argument as part of the conspiracy scheme, she couldn’t call him to the stand,
either. Atty. Brown remained silent during this process.
135. Atty. LeBar’s Motion to Dismiss Dr. Tarapchak’s Petition for Habeas Corpus
relief that he filed on July 22, 2015, was patently illegal in its nature. First and foremost,
any response to the Petition by anyone was due no later than July 9, 2015, by order of
Judge Nealon, who issued the Rule Returnable. Atty. LeBar’s response was required to be
an answer, and a timely one, not a Motion to Dismiss. Atty. LeBar could have filed timely
preliminary objections, but he didn’t do that, either. Regardless of what he filed untimely,
he knew that Dr. Tarapchak was not going to file a response because he made sure that
she was never served with a copy. He further knew after a special meeting in chambers
that Dr. Tarapchak was not going to have an opportunity to respond to anyone’s argument
during the hearing. His Motion to Dismiss is replete with knowingly false statements
regarding material facts on the record. He asserted, for example, that Dr. Tarapchak’s
confinement since October 23, 2014, was completely legal, but he failed to append a
Bench Warrant, court order or detainer to support his assertion. Atty. LeBar’s repeated
bogus statements in his responsive motion were defensive to protect the past sins of the
conspirators when they previously conspired to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of her due process,
liberty and fair trial rights. If he really wanted to defeat her Petition for Habeas Corpus
44
relief, he only needed to append the commit document that gave Warden McMillan the
authority to hold her in prison since October 23, 2014, but that’s the only document not
appended to his Motion to Dismiss, because it doesn’t exist.
136. On September 18, 2015, Atty. LeBar filed a response to Dr. Tarapchak’s Motion
to Supplement Atty. Brown as Counsel dated September 15, 2015, which she filed
independent of Atty. Brown because it was a document he would have never agreed to
prepare for her. Atty. LeBar again failed to serve Dr. Tarapchak with his response, as he
was required to serve her as the preparer and filing party of her Motion to Supplement
Counsel. See Exhibit “W”, the attendant Certificate of Service of Atty. LeBar’s response.
He served Atty. Brown, who Atty. LeBar knew was never going to provide a copy to Dr.
Tarapchak, and he didn’t. She actually didn’t discover it was filed until mid-way through
trial upon review of the docket. None of the content in Atty. LeBar’s response disputed
the facts within Dr. Tarapchak’s Motion to Supplement Counsel, which were facts
harvested right from the record to elaborately and articulately describe precisely how
Atty. Brown conspired with Atty. LeBar. Kathleen Kane, Judge Barrasse and others to
deprive her of her due process, liberty and fair trial rights to accomplish rigging the trial
for ensured conviction. Instead, Atty. LeBar’s response was a desperate and delusional
diatribe of baseless, unsupported allegations, all of which were in conflict with the facts
on the record. He filed it in defense of Atty. Brown, but without offering one word of
defense to one single fact that Dr. Tarapchak asserted to illustrate Atty. Brown’s
conspiracy. Atty. LeBar filed the response at 3:24 pm on September 18, 2015, and he was
present in the courtroom at 9:00 am to attend a pre-trial hearing. Dr. Tarapchak sat no
further away than ten feet from him. He could have simply handed her a copy, but he
didn’t. Like a good soldier in this conspiracy, he filed his response to defend and protect
Atty. Brown where Atty. Brown, under a direct aggressive attack claiming unethical,
dishonest, unprofessional conduct and ineffective counsel, refused to file a response to
defend and protect himself.
137. The misconduct of Atty. LeBar relating to his willing and knowing participation
in a conspiracy, and all planning relating thereto, with Atty. Kalinowski, Atty. Brown,
Judge Geroulo and Judge Barrasse to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of due process, liberty and
fair trial rights was approved by Kathleen Kane.
45
138. The course of misconduct by Atty. LeBar relating to his willing and knowing
participation in a conspiracy, and all planning relating thereto, with Atty. Kalinowski,
Atty. Brown, Judge Geroulo and Judge Barrasse to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of due process,
liberty and fair trial rights for the purpose of rigging her trial to ensure convictions was
deliberate, evil and malicious.
139. The course of misconduct by Atty. LeBar relating to his willing and knowing
participation in a conspiracy, and all planning relating thereto, with Atty. Kalinowski,
Atty. Brown, Judge Geroulo and Judge Barrasse to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of due process,
liberty and fair trial rights for the additional purpose of concealing the conspiracy as it
evolved.
140. Atty. LeBar’s concealment of the conspiracy occurred whenever he stayed silent
while Atty. Kalinowski, Atty. Brown, Judge Geroulo and Judge Barrasse were remaining
silent during hearings when they all had a duty to speak, as relates to providing Dr.
Tarapchak with her due process, liberty and fair trial rights by being open and honest
about her rights being violated when she did not get a mandatory bail hearing within (72)
hours, and not being released when the Bench Warrant expired.
141. Atty. LeBar’s concealment of the conspiracy also occurred when he lied about
material facts and bail history, or misdirected the truth, while Atty. Kalinowski, Atty.
Brown, Judge Geroulo and Judge Barrasse were also lying about material facts and bail
history, or misdirecting the truth, during hearings when they all had a duty to speak as
relates to providing Dr. Tarapchak her due process, liberty and fair trial rights.
142. Atty. LeBar’s and Kathleen Kane’s motive for participating in a conspiracy to
deprive Dr. Tarapchak of due process, liberty and fair trial rights for the purpose of
rigging her trial to ensure convictions was political retaliation. Dr. Tarapchak was
extensively involved with Joseph Pilchesky in the exposure of vast corruption in
Lackawanna County, particularly the vast corruption that was exposed in Family Court in
2012, which involved naming numerous law firms, judges, Guardian ad Litems and court
employees, as well as various residents with financial and political affluence, all of whom
were somehow involved in some degree of corrupt ion. Dr. Tarapchak’s ex-husband, for
example, Alex Tarapchak, Sr., was one such affluent person caught up in rigging custody
cases and publicly exposed, and who has close ties to President Judge Thomas Munley. In
46
addition, one attorney who was caught up in a publicized scandal, relating to a conspiracy
with GAL Danielle Ross to deprive a young mother of her maternal rights, was Judge
Barrasse’s sister, Nancy Barrasse.
143. In addition, Atty. LeBar was conspiring with others to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of a
full and proper hearing on her Petition for Habeas Corpus relief to protect the conspiracy
that’s been going on at the prison between House Arrest Director Patrick Lynn and
Warden McMillan, where Lynn would illegally find alleged bail violators guilty at illegal
jailhouse hearings where alleged violators were deprived an attorney, and McMillan
would illegally jail them without any judicial authority.
144. Atty. LeBar repeatedly insulted and disrespected Dr. Tarapchak in his filings and
in open court when he referred to her as a “gamer” whenever she exercised her due
process rights to litigate. He showed an absolute distain towards her whenever she
exercised her due process right to litigate in civil matter. Atty. LeBar went so far as to
suggest that she had no due process right to litigate in certain civil matters.
145. At all times relevant thereto, Kathleen Kane failed to prevent Atty. LeBar from
participating in a conspiracy to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of due process, liberty and fair trial
rights to ensure a conviction through a rigged trial, and in the alternative, she encouraged
him to participate in a conspiracy in support of her “Hometown Boys Club”.
146. As a direct and proximate result of Kathleen Kane’s and Atty. LeBar’s willful
participation in the conspiracy against Dr. Tarapchak, she illegally remained incarcerated
for nearly a year until the first day of her trial, and then she was found guilty of eight (8)
of thirteen (13) charges in a rigged trial.
147. As a direct and proximate result of Kathleen Kane’s and Atty. LeBar’s willful
participation in the ongoing conspiracy against Dr. Tarapchak, and their failure to take
any action prevent said conspiracy, she suffered denial of equal protection of the laws and
illegal incarceration for nearly one year.
148. At all times relevant thereto, Kathleen Kane’s and Atty. LeBar’s participation in
the conspiracy with other against Dr. Tarapchak, was done in an evil and malicious
manner designed to cause her severe prejudice, harm and injury.
WHEREFORE, as fully demonstrated above, Kathleen Kane and Atty. LeBar knowingly
conspired with Judge Barrasse, Judge Geroulo, Atty. Kalinowski and Atty. Brown to deprive Dr.
47
Tarapchak of her due process, liberty and fair trial rights, and deny equal protection under the
laws, to ensure lengthy illegal incarcerations and convictions through a rigged trial by
influencing the verdict of the jury, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1985 and 1986. Dr. Tarapchak
requests judgment entered in her favor and any other award the court deems appropriate. Dr.
Tarapchak further requests punitive damages as the court deems appropriate.
COUNT IV
42 U.S.C. 1985 and 1986 claims as to Judge Vito Geroulo
Conspiracy with others to Deprive Plaintiff of Due Process, Liberty and Fair Trial Rights
and Deny Equal Protection under the Laws
149. Paragraphs (1) through (148) are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth
in full.
150. 42 U.S.C. 1985 and 1986 claims are authorized upon a showing of a conspiracy
with two or more individuals to deprive a person of his or her civil rights, or deprive a
person of equal protection of the laws, as well as a showing of having the authority to
prevent the deprivation and failing to do so.\
151. Dr. Tarapchak had due process, liberty and fair trial rights as guaranteed by the
U.S. Constitution under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Constitution at Article 1, Section 9, as relates to being arrested and
prosecuted by the Commonwealth, defended by counsel and judicially managed by the
Court.
152. From January of 2014 through January of 2015, Judge Vito Geroulo was assigned
to Dr. Tarapchak’s criminal case. During that period of time, Atty. Kalinowski was
appointed counsel for Dr. Tarapchak and represented her in all matters. See Exhibit “E”
153. On May 5, 2015, Judge Geroulo issued a bail modification order permitting Dr.
Tarapchak to be released on modified bail for $25,000.00/10%, which she posted. In
addition, he placed her under House Arrest as a condition of bail. She was required to
follow House Arrest conditions as a condition of bail. One bail condition was to wear an
electronic bracelet on her ankle so her location could be monitored by House Arrest.
48
154. On July 22, 2015, Dr. Tarapchak filed a Motion to Substitute Atty. Kalinowski as
Counsel, citing a laundry list of unethical and dishonest conduct, and ineffective counsel,
by Atty. Kalinowski. Judge Geroulo never gave her the opportunity to argue on behalf of
her Motion.
155. On the evening of October 22, 2014, Dr. Tarapchak went off House Arrest’s
electronic grid for approximately two hours. On the morning of October 23, 2014, at
approximately 8:00 am, she was summoned to the Office of House Arrest to explain her
whereabouts on the previous evening, which she did, however, House Arrest Director
Patrick Lynn determined that she had violated House Arrest conditions. Lynn called Atty.
LeBar, and at his instruction, Lynn arrested her and then transported her to the
Lackawanna County Prison. Patrick Lynn did not give her Miranda warnings. He did not
present her with a Bench Warrant when he arrested her. Since October 23, 2014, no
application for a Bench Warrant, nor a Bench Warrant, nor a Return of Service of a Bench
Warrant has been filed on the record. See Exhibit “E”, the docket sheet.
156. By October 27, 2014, a Monday, as required in Bench Warrant arrests for bail
violations, Dr. Tarapchak had not yet received a mandatory (72) hour Bench Warrant
hearing on her alleged bail violations, as required by 234 Pa. Code, Rule 536 (A) (1) (b)
and Pa. Code 234 § 150 (A) (5), (a) and (b).
157. Pursuant to Pa. Code 234 § 150 (A) (7), a Bench Warrant expires after seventy-
hours of a Defendant’s detention. After (72) of incarceration, Dr. Tarapchak was not
released from prison.
158. On October 24, 2014, House Arrest Director, Patrick Lynn, sent Judge Geroulo a
letter (letter) advising him that he held his own misconduct hearing at the prison and
determined that Dr. Tarapchak had violated her bail conditions. Patrick Lynn also
recommended that she remain incarcerated. See Exhibit “D”, the letter. Dr. Tarapchak
was not copied in on the letter, but the AG’s Insurance Fraud Office was, which is where
Atty. LeBar works. The letter was not entered into the record.
159. After Judge Geroulo received the letter, he did not summon Dr. Tarapchak to
appear before him for a mandatory hearing on bail violations, as required by Pa. Code 234
§ 150, which required her to appear before a judicial officer within (72) hours of arrest,
49
preferably the judicial officer who issued the Bench Warrant. No Rules of Criminal
Procedure provide that a non-judicial officer can determine if a person violated bail.
160. On October 30, 2014, Atty. LeBar filed a Motion to Revoke Dr. Tarapchak’s bail.
November 7, 2014, a hearing was scheduled on Atty. LeBar’s Motion. When Dr.
Tarapchak appeared before Judge Geroulo, she was in prison garb and handcuffed, clearly
indicating she was in the custody of the prison. Judge Geroulo did not inquire why Dr.
Tarapchak was in prison garb, affirming that he knew she was arrested on bail violations
on October 23, 2014, and he remained silent on her right to a mandatory bail violation
hearing within (72) hours of incarceration. Atty. Kalinowski was present and maintained
silence himself.
161. Judge Geroulo knew upon receipt of the letter from Patrick Lynn dated October
24, 2014, that Dr. Tarapchak was re-incarcerated on alleged bail violations on October 23,
2014; and, that it was Patrick Lynn who determined that she violated bail and
recommended that she stay incarcerated, yet Judge Geroulo did nothing to reverse Patrick
Lynn’s illegal conduct and offer Dr. Tarapchak relief. See Exhibit “D”
162. Judge Geroulo knew that Patrick Lynn had no judicial authority to determine that
Dr. Tarapchak violated her bail conditions. He further knew that she was required to have
a bench warrant hearing within (72) hours on the bail violations, yet he did nothing to
ensure that her civil rights were provided.
163. Judge Geroulo knew that Atty. Kalinowski represented Dr. Tarapchak, and that he
knew she had been re-incarcerated on alleged bail violations on October 23, 2014. He also
knew that Atty. Kalinowski took no action to get Dr. Tarapchak a bail violation hearing,
either within (72) hours or beyond that time, yet Judge Geroulo did nothing to reprimand
Atty. Kalinowski to prevent violations to Dr. Tarapchak’s due process and liberty rights.
164. Judge Geroulo knew when he scheduled November 7, 2014, to hear Atty.
LeBar’s Motion to Revoke her bail that he should have scheduled a bench warrant hearing
on Dr. Tarapchak’s alleged bail violations, but he knowingly, willfully and intentionally
declined to schedule a bench warrant hearing to deprive her of due process, liberty and
fair trial rights in a malicious and evil manner.
50
165. Judge Geroulo knew when he received the letter from Patrick Lynn dated October
24, 2014 that Dr. Tarapchak’s due process right to a hearing before a judicial officer was
violated and he did nothing to correct it or reverse it.
166. Judge Geroulo knew on November 7, 2014 that Dr. Tarapchak’s right to a
mandatory bail violation within (72) hours had been violated. He further knew that the
Bench Warrant had expired after (72) hours and Dr. Tarapchak should have been released
from prison. He had a duty to release her from prison and failed to do so.
167. Judge Geroulo knew that Warden McMillan did not have the authority to continue
to hold Dr. Tarapchak after the Bench Warrant expired on or about October 27, 2014.
168. On November 7, 2014, Judge Geroulo had the authority to release Dr. Tarapchak
from prison because the Bench Warrant had expired, but he remained silent. He further
knew that Atty. Kalinowski and Atty. LeBar were staying silent on the issues of having a
bail violation hearing and release. The silence practiced by all three amounted to a
conspiracy to deprive he of due process, liberty and fair trial rights.
169. Judge Geroulo took no action to prevent Dr. Tarapchak from being further
confined to prison after the Bench Warrant had expired in furtherance of the conspiracy to
keep her confined for as long as possible pre-trial.
170. Judge Geroulo conspired with Patrick Lynn to have Dr. Tarapchak illegally
adjudicated guilty of bail violation as he had knowledge of Patrick Lynn’s illegal actions
and he did nothing to correct them, reverse them, or overrule them.
171. Judge Geroulo knowingly conspired with Warden McMillan to keep Dr.
Tarapchak incarcerated without a Bench Warrant or any other commit document.
172. Judge Geroulo knowingly conspired with Atty. Kalinowski and Atty. LeBar to
keep Dr. Tarapchak incarcerated without a Bench Warrant or any other commit document.
173. Judge Geroulo knowingly conspired with Patrick Lynn, Atty. Kalinowski,
Warden McMillan, Kathleen Kane and Atty. LeBar to willfully, intentionally and
deliberately, and in a malicious and evil manner, deprive Dr. Tarapchak of her due
process, liberty and fair trial rights, and equal protection under the law, as to keep her
incarcerated to prevent her from having the freedom to participate in the preparation of
her defense, as to rig her trial by influencing the verdict of the jury.
51
174. Judge Geroulo had the authority to prevent Dr. Tarapchak from suffering the
deprivation of her due process and liberty rights, and from suffering deprivation of equal
protection of the laws, and failed to exercise that authority when he didn’t give her a bail
violation hearing within (72) hours or release her from prison when the Bench Warrant
expired after (72) hours.
175. Judge Geroulo’s ongoing and willful complicity in a conspiracy with others to
deprive Dr. Tarapchak of her due process, liberty and fair trial rights was a violation to the
Judicial Code at Canons 1, 2 and 3, inclusively.
176. As a direct and proximate result of Judge Geroulo’s willful participation in the
conspiracy against Dr. Tarapchak, she remained incarcerated until the first day of her trial
and was found guilty of eight (8) of thirteen (13) charges.
177. On January 23, 2015, Judge Geroulo removed Atty. Kalinowski as counsel and
recused himself as judge.
178. As a direct and proximate result of Judge Geroulo’s willful participation in the
conspiracy against Dr. Tarapchak, she suffered unnecessary and illegal incarceration for
nearly one year, during which time she was deprived of her right to due process, liberty
and a fair trial.
179. Judge Geroulo’s motive for participating in a conspiracy to deprive Dr.
Tarapchak of due process, liberty and fair trial rights for the purpose of rigging her trial to
ensure convictions was political retaliation. Dr. Tarapchak was extensively involved with
Joseph Pilchesky in the exposure of vast corruption in Lackawanna County, particularly
the vast corruption that was exposed in Family Court in 2012, which involved naming
numerous law firms, judges, Guardian ad Litems and court employees, as well as various
residents with financial and political affluence, all of whom were somehow involved in
some degree of corrupt ion. Dr. Tarapchak’s ex-husband, for example, Alex Tarapchak,
Sr., was one such affluent person caught up in rigging custody cases and publicly
exposed, and who has close ties to President Judge Thomas Munley. In addition, one
attorney who was caught up in a publicized scandal, relating to a conspiracy with GAL
Danielle Ross to deprive a young mother of her maternal rights, was Judge Barrasse’s
sister, Nancy Barrasse.
52
180. In addition, Judge Geroulo was conspiring with others to deprive Dr. Tarapchak
of a full and proper hearing on her Petition for Habeas Corpus relief to protect the
conspiracy that’s been going on at the prison between House Arrest Director Patrick Lynn
and Warden McMillan, where Lynn would illegally find alleged bail violators guilty at
illegal jailhouse hearings where alleged violators were deprived an attorney, and
McMillan would illegally jail them without any judicial authority.
WHEREFORE, as fully demonstrated above, Judge Geroulo knowingly conspired with Atty.
Kalinowski, Patrick Lynn, Atty. LeBar and Kathleen Kane to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of her due
process, liberty and fair trial rights, and deny her of equal protection under the laws, to ensure a
lengthy illegal incarceration and ensure a conviction through a rigged trial, and he failed to
prevent such deprivations and denials, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1985 and 1986. Dr. Tarapchak
requests judgment entered in her favor and any other award the court deems appropriate. Dr.
Tarapchak further requests punitive damages as the court deems appropriate.
COUNT V
42 U.S.C. 1985 and 1986 claims as to Judge John Braxton
Conspiracy with others to Deprive Plaintiff of Due process, Liberty and Fair Trial Rights
and Deny Equal Protection of the Laws
181. Paragraphs (1) through (180) are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth
in full.
182. 42 U.S.C. 1985 and 1986 claims are authorized upon a showing of a conspiracy
with two or more individuals to deprive a person of his or her civil righ+
183. ts, or deprive a person of equal protection of the laws, as well as a showing of
having the authority to prevent the deprivation and failing to do so.
184. Dr. Tarapchak had due process, liberty and fair trial rights as guaranteed by the
U.S. Constitution under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Constitution at Article 1, Section 9, as relates to being arrested and
prosecuted by the Commonwealth, defended by counsel and judicially managed by the
Court.
53
185. On September 18, 2015, a Friday, Dr. Tarapchak had served upon Judge Barrasse
a Motion to Disqualify Judge Barrasse. See Exhibit “H”
186. On the morning of September 21, 2015, the first day when trial was to begin, Dr.
Tarapchak had served upon Judge Barrasse a Brief in support of her Motion to Disqualify
Judge Barrasse. See Exhibit “J”. On that same morning, Judge Barrasse read off several
orders, to include an order that denied Dr. Tarapchak’s Motion to Supplement Atty.
Brown as Counsel, which Motion elaborately set forth, with facts from the record, that
Atty. Brown had willfully participated in an ongoing complicated conspiracy for six
months to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of her due process, liberty and fair trial rights as to rig
the trial and ensure convictions. The jury was selected when he finished reading the orders
into the record.
187. At some point during or after jury selection, Dr. Tarapchak was informed by Atty.
Brown that Judge Barrasse, without explanation, was no longer presiding over the trial,
but instead, Judge John Braxton was going to preside over it.
188. There is no court order on the record explaining Judge Barrasse’s very sudden
departure or the reason Judge Braxton assumed control over the trial.
189. On the morning of September 22, 2015, Judge John Braxton appeared as the
judge presiding over the trial and he continued to preside over it to its completion on
October 5, 2015.
190. Prior to taking the Bench on September 22, 2015, Judge Braxton had the
opportunity to review the file, to include Dr. Tarapchak’s Motion to Supplement Atty.
Brown as Counsel, the Brief in support thereof, her Motion to Disqualify Judge Barrasse
and the Brief in support thereof; or, in the alternative, Judge Braxton had the full authority
to delay the trial for one day to provide himself with the opportunity to review any
documents which might shed light upon any existing prejudice in the case, such as a six-
month conspiracy to rig the trial.
191. Dr. Tarapchak believes, and therefore avers, that Judge Braxton was fully
informed by Judge Barrasse of the complicated conspiracy that had been in play over the
previous six months involving Atty. Brown and Atty. LeBar to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of
her due process, liberty and fair trial rights, and thereby rig the trial and ensure
convictions. Certainly, Judge Barrasse didn’t step down from presiding over the case
54
because his caseload was too heavy. The trial had been on his docket schedule for six
months. Without a public explanation, it must be assumed that he stepped down for the
reasons articulated in her Motion to Disqualify Judge Barrasse. It’s unreasonable to
consider that Judge Barrasse and Judge Braxton did not have an informative discussion. In
addition, Judge Barrasse fled because feared being confronted with a motion for
reconsideration of his denial of her Motion to Supplement Atty. Brown as Counsel.
192. Dr. Tarapchak submits that if Judge Braxton wasn’t informed by Judge Barrasse,
or some other conspirator, of the truthful history and ongoing complicated nature of the
conspiracy, then he could have become fully informed of it had he just read her Motion to
Supplement Counsel and Motion to Disqualify Judge Barrasse, and the briefs in support.
193. Dr. Tarapchak submits that however Judge Braxton found out about the
conspiracy involving Judge Barrasse, Kathleen Kane, Atty. Brown and Atty. LeBar to rig
the trial, and it was impossible for him not to find out, he had a duty to act with dignity,
integrity, honesty and the highest ethical standards, and in accordance with the PA
Judicial Code, to immediately stop the conspiracy from moving forward and prevent Dr.
Tarapchak from suffering any further deprivations of due process, liberty and fair trial
rights, but he didn’t.
194. Dr. Tarapchak submits that Judge Braxton should have immediately removed
Atty. Brown as counsel based upon the uncontested and undisputed material facts that
were elaborately and chronologically articulated in her Motion to Supplement Atty.
Brown as Counsel and Motion to Disqualify Judge Barrasse, which facts, as harvested
from the record, spelled out how the conspiracy was developed and fueled by
vindictiveness for six months with Atty. Brown as counsel.
195. Dr. Tarapchak submits that Judge Braxton had to have read her Motion to
Supplement Atty. Brown as Counsel and her Motion to Disqualify Judge Barrasse, and
had he read them, a red flag appeared when he did nothing to prevent the rigged trial from
moving forward, and in the alternative, if he didn’t read them, that’s a red flag in itself to
indicate his lack of concern for protecting a defendant’s due process and fair trial rights,
196. Judge Braxton had the full power and authority to remove Atty. Brown as counsel
to avoid exposing both Dr. Tarapchak and the jury to a rigged trial, notwithstanding the
fact that Judge Barrasse denied the Motion to Supplement Counsel a day earlier. The
55
Coordinated Jurisdiction Doctrine can be overridden by any extraordinary circumstances
at any time, and those circumstances presented themselves to Judge Braxton within the
content of Dr. Tarapchak’s Motion to Supplement Counsel and her Motion to Disqualify
Judge Barrasse, and the briefs in support thereof. The clear presentation of a conspiracy to
rig a trial by the prosecution, defense counsel and the presiding judge is without question
an extraordinary circumstance. In addition, Judge Barrasse surrendered jurisdiction.
197. Clearly, just by and through Judge Barrasse recusing himself, and without an
explanation on the record, no less, Judge Braxton knew something was very seriously
wrong. There was no medical emergency. Judge Barrasse was on the Bench a day after he
recused himself. The obvious thing that was seriously wrong was that the conspirators
were confronted by Dr. Tarapchak’s two motions on the eve of the trial, which
comprehensively exposed the conspiracy to deprive her of her right to a fair trial by
rigging it for conviction, and Judge Barrasse wanted out.
198. Judge Braxton contributed to the ongoing conspiracy to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of
due process, liberty and fair trial rights to rig her trial when he remained silent and failed
to take appropriate action to prevent the obviously rigged trial from moving forward.
199. Judge Braxton’s knowing and willful complicity in an ongoing conspiracy with
others by remaining silent when he had a duty to act in order to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of
her due process, liberty and fair trial rights to rig the trial was a violation of the PA
Judicial Code at Canons 1, 2 and 3, inclusively.
200. Judge Braxton knew, or should have known, that he was taking charge over a trial
rigged-for-conviction by and through a willful, intentional, deliberate and malicious
conspiracy orchestrated by, and involving, Judge Barrasse, Judge Geroulo, Atty. Brown,
Kathleen Kane, Atty. LeBar and Warden McMillan over the previous year, and he failed
to act appropriately by failing to stop the rigged trial, removing Atty. Brown as defense
counsel, and reporting all conspiring parties to the proper authorities for civil and/or
criminal prosecution, or both.
201. Dr. Tarapchak’s political activity was well-known to Judge Braxton, since he
presided over a matter at 14-CV-3208, which was a matter brought by Dr. Tarapchak and
Joseph Pilchesky to raise awareness to the Lackawanna County Commissioners and the
Lackawanna County Prison Board that under Warden McMillan’s watch, the inmates
56
were repeatedly being subjected to horrific, inhumane and abusive conditions and
treatment. The action sought mandamus and injunctive relief to appropriately end the
horrific, inhumane and abusive conditions and treatment suffered by inmates, but Judge
Braxton ruled that Dr. Tarapchak and Joseph Pilchesky had no right to file the action and
he dismissed it with prejudice, leaving the horribly abused inmates with no relief. In fact,
Joseph Pilchesky has filed numerous mandamus actions against the city and county to
right government corrupt acts, each having had sound and legal merit, and each was
dismissed with prejudice by Judge Braxton.
202. As the direct and proximate result of Judge Braxton’s willful complicity with
Atty. Brown, Judge Barrasse, Judge Geroulo, Atty. LeBar, Kathleen Kane and Warden
McMillan, in the nature of silence and failing to speak or act when he had a duty to one or
the other, Dr. Tarapchak had to suffer through a trial she knew had been rigged by
conspiracies involving a judge over the prior year to ensure her convictions. In fact, when
the prosecution rested its case, Atty. Brown announced to Judge Braxton that he would
not be calling any defense witnesses or putting on any kind of defense for Dr. Tarapchak.
203. At all times relevant thereto, Judge Braxton had the full authority to prevent Dr.
Tarapchak from being exposed to a trial he knew was rigged by and through a conspiracy
planned and executed by Atty. Brown, Atty. LeBar, Kathleen Kane and Judge Barrasse,
among others, and he failed to prevent the rigged trial from commencing.
WHEREFORE, as fully demonstrated above, Judge Braxton knowingly conspired with
Atty. Brown, Judge Barrasse, Judge Geroulo, Atty. LeBar, Kathleen Kane and Warden
McMillan to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of due process, liberty and fair trial rights, and deny her
equal protection of the laws, to ensure a conviction through a rigged trial, and he failed to
prevent such deprivations in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1985 and 1986. Dr. Tarapchak requests
judgment entered in her favor and any other award the court deems appropriate. Dr.
Tarapchak further requests punitive damages as the court deems appropriate.
COUNT VI
42 U.S.C. 1985 and 1986 claims as to Atty. Joseph Kalinowski
57
Conspiracy with others to Deprive Plaintiff of Due process, Liberty and Fair Trial Rights
and Deny Equal Protection under the Laws
204. Paragraphs (1) through (202) are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth
in full.
205. 42 U.S.C. 1985 and 1986 claims are authorized upon a showing of a conspiracy
with two or more individuals to deprive a person of his or her civil rights, or deprive a
person of equal protection of the laws, as well as a showing of having the authority to
prevent the deprivation and failing to do so.
206. Dr. Tarapchak had due process, liberty and fair trial rights as guaranteed by the
U.S. Constitution under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Constitution at Article 1, Section 9, as relates to being arrested and
prosecuted by the Commonwealth, defended by counsel and judicially managed by the
Court.
207. Upon incarceration on January 2, 2014, Dr. Tarapchak made application to the
Public Defender Office for representation, which was denied by Atty. Kalinowski,
however, at her first pre-trial conference with Judge Geroulo, Atty. Kalinowski was
ordered by Judge Geroulo to review the application, which he did, which resulted in her
being approved for representation.
208. Atty. Kalinowski was Dr. Tarapchak’s appointed counsel from January 27, 2014
to January 23, 2015.
209. On or about September 30, 2014, after a hearing, Judge Geroulo ordered that Dr.
Tarapchak’s right to a preliminary hearing would be by-passed, and in exchange thereof,
the Commonwealth would provide her with all exhibits, discovery and transcripts from
the Grand Jury presentation, which were in disc form, two discs.
210. On or about September 30, 2014, the Commonwealth provided Atty. Kalinowski
with all exhibits, discovery and transcripts from the Grand Jury presentation, but at no
time did he provide any of the exhibits, discovery or transcripts to Dr. Tarapchak. In fact,
the more she demanded copies of them, the more he lied to her that he was going to
provide them. He did provide her with two discs, but most of the discovery and all of the
transcripts were missing.
58
211. On July 22, 2014, Dr. Tarapchak filed a voluminous Motion to Substitute Counsel
citing a laundry list of unethical, dishonest and unprofessional conduct by Atty.
Kalinowski, all of which supported her claims of ineffective counsel. Judge Geroulo never
permitted her to argue her Motion, instead he permitted Atty. Kalinowski to continue to
represent her until January 23, 2015, when Judge Geroulo removed Atty. Kalinowski and
himself from the case.
212. When Dr. Tarapchak was arrested the morning of October 23, 2014, by House
Arrest Director, Patrick Lynn, for alleged bail violations, and thereafter incarcerated by
Patrick Lynn, Atty. Kalinowski knew she was being arrested and incarcerated. He also
knew she had the right to a mandatory Bench Warrant hearing within (72) hours. He also
knew she had a right to her liberty if she did not get a Bench Warrant hearing within (72)
hours. He also knew that no Bench Warrant was requested to arrest Dr. Tarapchak, and
that no Bench Warrant existed to jail her and keep her jailed. All that known to him, he
failed to act to protect Dr. Tarapchak’s due process and liberty rights. Instead, he
remained silent and took no action whatsoever, not even to visit her in prison to explain
her civil rights under the circumstances.
213. Atty. Kalinowski did not appear at the prison to meet with Dr. Tarapchak after she
was arrested. He did not ensure that she got a bail violation hearing before a judicial
officer, who was Judge Geroulo. After (72) had passed and the Bench Warrant expired, if
any exists, he did not take the appropriate action to petition the Court to release her.
Instead he remained silent while she suffered illegal incarceration as his contribution to
the conspiracy evolving to deprive her of due process, liberty and fair trial rights, and
equal protection of the law rights.
214. Atty. Kalinowski knew that Patrick Lynn held a patently illegal hearing at the
prison on October 24, 2014, on the issue of Dr. Tarapchak’s guilt regarding bail violation,
and that Patrick Lynn, not a judicial officer, determined that she was guilty of violating
bail. He also knew that Patrick Lynn recommended her continued detainment.
Nonetheless, he remained silent while she suffered illegal incarceration as his contribution
to the conspiracy evolving to deprive her of due process, liberty and fair trial rights, and
equal protection of the law rights.
59
215. On November 7, 2014, at a hearing scheduled by Judge Geroulo on a Motion to
Revoke Bail that was filed by Atty. LeBar, Atty. Kalinowski was silent on the fact that
Dr. Tarapchak had not gotten her mandatory (72) Bench Warrant hearing, and that the
Bench Warrant had expired. Atty. Kalinowski could have obtained her release as a matter
of law had he spoke up, since the Bench Warrant had expired ten days prior to the
hearing, but instead, he was silent while she suffered illegal incarceration as his
contribution to the conspiracy evolving to deprive her of due process, liberty and fair trial
rights, and equal protection of the law rights.
216. Atty. Kalinowski knew that no law enforcement officer made an application to
Judge Geroulo for a Bench Warrant, that no Bench Warrant ever existed as the commit
authority to arrest and incarcerate her, that no Bench Warrant existed to keep her
incarcerated, and that no court order existed to keep her incarcerated, and after (72) hours
had expired on October 27, 2014, he remained silent until the day he was removed from
the case on January 23, 2015, and beyond.
217. Atty. Kalinowski conspired with Judge Geroulo and Atty. LeBar to deprive Dr.
Tarapchak of her due process, liberty and fair trial rights and deny her equal protection of
the laws, thereby resulting in her continued illegal incarceration for nearly a year, and her
inability to participate in the preparation of her defense, which resulted in the
consummation of the conspiracy through Atty. Brown and others to ensure she was
exposed to a rigged trial and assured convictions.
218. As a direct and proximate result of Atty. Kalinowski’s participation in the
conspiracy against Dr. Tarapchak to keep her incarcerated, she remained incarcerated
until the first day of her rigged trial and was found guilty of eight (8) of thirteen (13)
charges.
219. As a direct and proximate result of Atty. Kalinowski’s participation in the
conspiracy against Dr. Tarapchak to deprive her of her due process and liberty rights, she
suffered denial of equal protection of the laws, the denial of her right to participate in the
preparation of her own defense, and the right to have a fair trial.
220. Atty. Kalinowski knew that his participation in the conspiracy against Dr.
Tarapchak to deprive her of her due process and liberty rights, to deny her of equal
protection of the laws would result in an illegal and lengthy pre-trial incarceration, which
60
would result in her being denied of her right to participate in the preparation of her own
defense, and the right to have a fair trial.
221. Atty. Kalinowski was the required first responder to Dr. Tarapchak’s dilemma of
being arrested and incarcerated for alleged bail violations, as he was counsel of record,
and he had a duty to go to her aid and defend her against any loss of civil rights or equal
protection of the laws, but he knowingly breached that duty to her harm and injury by
remaining silent when he had a duty to act and speak on her behalf, and prevent her from
suffering the deprivation of due process and liberty rights, and illegal incarceration.
222. Atty. Kalinowski knowingly denied Dr. Tarapchak of representation when she
initially applied, causing her to sit in jail for a month without access to legal
representation to seek bail.
223. Even after Atty. Kalinowski was assigned to Dr. Tarapchak’s case, it took him
three months to get a bail modification hearing before Judge Geroulo, which bail
modification was granted. He was negligent and ineffective in failing to get a bail
modification much sooner.
224. Atty. Kalinowski could have prevented the conspiracy being executed to keep Dr.
Tarapchak imprisoned while awaiting trial, but he knowingly failed to do so, and instead,
watched the conspiracy be further developed by succeeding counsel, the succeeding judge
and the prosecution to maturity in the nature of a lengthy and illegal period of pre-trial
incarceration, denial of due process rights, and the exposure to a trial rigged for
conviction-by-conspiracy.
225. At all times relevant thereto, the actions of Atty. Kalinowski as set forth above
were willful, intentional, deliberate and wanton manner to impose harm and injury upon
Dr. Tarapchak in an evil and malicious manner that is shocking to the senses.
226. Atty. Kalinowski’s motive for participating in a conspiracy to deprive Dr.
Tarapchak of due process, liberty and fair trial rights for the purpose of rigging her trial to
ensure convictions was political retaliation. Dr. Tarapchak was extensively involved with
Joseph Pilchesky in the exposure of vast corruption in Lackawanna County, particularly
the vast corruption that was exposed in Family Court in 2012, which involved naming
numerous law firms, judges, Guardian ad Litems and court employees, as well as various
residents with financial and political affluence, all of whom were somehow involved in
61
some degree of corrupt ion. Dr. Tarapchak’s ex-husband, for example, Alex Tarapchak,
Sr., was one such affluent person caught up in rigging custody cases and publicly
exposed, and who has close ties to President Judge Thomas Munley. In addition, one
attorney who was caught up in a publicized scandal, relating to a conspiracy with GAL
Danielle Ross to deprive a young mother of her maternal rights, was Judge Barrasse’s
sister, Nancy Barrasse.
227. In addition, Atty. Kalinowski was conspiring with others to deprive Dr.
Tarapchak to protect the conspiracy that’s been ongoing at the prison between House
Arrest Director Patrick Lynn and Warden McMillan for years, where Lynn would illegally
find alleged bail violators guilty at illegal jailhouse hearings where alleged violators were
deprived of an attorney, and Warden McMillan would illegally jail them at Patrick Lynn’s
instruction, without any judicial authority.
WHEREFORE, as fully demonstrated above, Atty. Kalinowski knowingly conspired with
Judge Geroulo, Atty. LeBar, Kathleen Kane and Patrick Lynn to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of her
due process, liberty and fair trial rights, and deny her equal protection of the laws, to ensure a
continued illegal incarceration and conviction through a rigged trial, and he failed to prevent
such deprivations, all in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1985 and 1986. Dr. Tarapchak requests judgment
entered in her favor and any other award the court deems appropriate. Dr. Tarapchak further
requests punitive damages as the court deems appropriate.
COUNT VII
42 U.S.C. 1985 and 1986 claims as to Warden McMillan and Patrick Lynn
Conspiracy with others to Deprive Plaintiff of Due process, Liberty and Fair Trial Rights
and Deny Equal Protection under the Laws
228. Paragraphs (1) through (228) are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth
in full.
229. 42 U.S.C. 1985 and 1986 claims are authorized upon a showing of a conspiracy
with two or more individuals to deprive a person of their civil rights, or deprive a person
of equal protection of the laws, as well as a showing of having the authority to prevent the
deprivation and failing to do so.
62
230. Dr. Tarapchak had due process, liberty and fair trial rights as guaranteed by the
U.S. Constitution under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Constitution at Article 1, Section 9, as relates to being arrested and
prosecuted by the Commonwealth, defended by counsel and judicially managed by the
Court.
231. At all times relevant thereto, Robert McMillan was the duly appointed Warden of
the Lackawanna County Prison.
232. On October 23, 2014, Dr. Tarapchak was arrested by House Arrest Director
Patrick Lynn and taken to the Lackawanna County Prison.
233. It is believed and therefore averred that no Bench Warrant was applied for by any
law enforcement officer relating to the arrest and incarceration of Dr. Tarapchak on
October 23, 2014 relating to alleged bail violations.
234. The record is silent on an application of a Bench Warrant, the granting of a Bench
Warrant, the return of service of a Bench Warrant or an order generated from a bench
warrant hearing before a judicial officer that was held within (72) hours of Dr.
Tarapchak’s incarceration.
235. Patrick Lynn had no legal authority to arrest and incarcerate Dr. Tarapchak.
236. Patrick Lynn did not read Dr. Tarapchak her Miranda rights after exposing her to
arrest and rigid interrogation regarding alleged bail violations, and he refused to allow her
to have her counsel present.
237. After Patrick Lynn interrogated Dr. Tarapchak regarding the alleged bail
violations, he called Atty. LeBar for instruction, who instructed him to place her in the
Lackawanna County Prison.
238. After Dr. Tarapchak was incarcerated on October 23, 2014, on the following day,
Patrick Lynn appeared at the prison to conduct a misconduct hearing regarding his
allegations of her bail violations. He informed Dr. Tarapchak that she was not going to be
permitted to have counsel for the hearing, so she refused to participate. The Rules of
Criminal Procedure does not include any provisions for a misconduct hearing to be held in
the Lackawanna County Prison, and conducted by non-judicial officers, more specifically,
House Arrest Director, Patrick Lynn.
63
239. On October 24, 2014 Patrick Lynn sent a letter to Judge Geroulo advising him
that he determined Dr. Tarapchak had violated bail conditions at a misconduct hearing at
the prison. The Office of the Attorney General was copied in on the letter. Dr. Tarapchak
was not, nor her attorney. The letter was not entered into the record. See Exhibits “B” and
“D”
240. Patrick Lynn knew he had no legal authority to conduct a misconduct hearing at
the prison for the purpose of determining whether or not Dr. Tarapchak had violated bail.
241. Lackawanna County permits Patrick Lynn to hold illegal misconduct hearings at
the prison to determine whether House Arrest clients have violated bail for the purpose of
diminishing the load of work judges would have to do.
242. Patrick Lynn conspired with Atty. LeBar to illegally arrest and incarcerate Dr.
Tarapchak on October 23, 2014 by arresting her without the authority of a Bench Warrant
and incarcerating her absent taking her to Judge Geroulo, who set her bail conditions,
even if there was a Bench Warrant.
243. Patrick Lynn knowingly concealed from the record, Dr. Tarapchak, her counsel
and the public that he had found her guilty of violating bail by his failing to enter any and
all documents relating to the misconduct hearing he conducted on October 24, 2014 where
he, as a layman, absent any judicial authority whatsoever, decided she had violated her
bail and should remain incarcerated.
244. Patrick Lynn knowingly, willfully and intentionally participated in a conspiracy to
deprive Dr. Tarapchak of due process, liberty and fair trial rights, and to deprive her of
equal protection of laws, when he followed Atty. LeBar’s instruction to arrest and
incarcerate her, with or without a Bench Warrant, and further, as a non-judicial officer,
determined at an illegal jailhouse hearing that she violated bail, and he recommended to a
judicial officer, Judge Geroulo, that she remain incarcerated.
245. Warden McMillan knew that record was silent on an application for a Bench
Warrant to arrest Dr. Tarapchak, the granting of a Bench Warrant, the return of service of
a Bench Warrant, or an order generated from a bench warrant hearing before a judicial
officer that was held within (72) hours of Dr. Tarapchak’s incarceration to provide him
with the authority to take her into his custody and keep her there indefinitely.
64
246. Dr. Tarapchak believes, and therefore avers, that no proper and legal Bench
Warrant was sought and issued by any judicial officer for the arrest and incarceration of
Dr. Tarapchak on October 23, 2014.
247. On October 27, 2014, Dr. Tarapchak had a right at law to be released from the
Lackawanna County Prison, because she did not get a mandatory Bench Warrant hearing
within (72) hours, as required by law in arrests for alleged bail violations, and because the
Bench Warrant had expired.
248. After October 27, 2014, when the Bench Warrant expired that was used to arrest
and incarcerate Dr. Tarapchak, if one existed, Warden McMillan had the authority, and
the duty, to release her and failed to do so.
249. Dr. Tarapchak believes, and therefore avers, and the record supports, that no
proper and legal Bench Warrant, Detainer or Court Order was sought and issued to give
Warden McMillan the authority to take her into his custody at the prison and hold her
there indefinitely.
250. On July 6, 2015, Dr. Tarapchak had prepared and filed for her a Rule to Show
Cause and Petition for Habeas Corpus relief, which named Warden McMillan as
defendant, which Rule required Warden McMillan to file an answer within three days to
the Petition and show the Court what legal authority he had to have been holding Dr.
Tarapchak in prison since October 23, 2014. No response was filed by Warden McMillan.
251. Dr. Tarapchak filed a grievance in August of 2015 demanding a copy of the
document that Warden McMillan relies upon to keep her incarcerated. Remarkably, the
prison responded that denial of liberty was not a grieveable issue.
252. Warden McMillan knowingly, willfully and intentionally participated in a
conspiracy to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of due process, liberty and fair trial rights, and to
deprive her of equal protection of laws when he knew that Patrick Lynn arrested and
incarcerated her without a Bench Warrant, and further, knew that Patrick Lynn, as a non-
judicial officer, determined that she violated bail and recommended that she remain
incarcerated.
253. As the direct and proximate result of Warden McMillan’s continued participation
in a conspiracy with Judge Geroulo, Judge Barrasse, Atty. Brown, Patrick Lynn, Kathleen
Kane and Atty. LeBar to keep Dr. Tarapchak confined to prison since October 23, 2014 to
65
the present day without a Bench Warrant, Detainer or Court order, she has suffered unjust
and illegal incarceration, which deprived her of her right to liberty, her right to participate
in the preparation of her own defense, her right to equal protection of the laws and the
right to a fair trial, all of which ultimately manifested into her being exposed to a rigged
trial where she was convicted.
254. Patrick Lynn and Warden McMillan knew, or should have known, that their
participation in a conspiracy to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of due process, liberty and fair trial
right, and deprive her of equal protection of the laws, would result in harm and injury to
Dr. Tarapchak.
255. At all times relevant thereto, the actions by Patrick Lynn and Warden McMillan
relating to their participation in a conspiracy to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of due process,
liberty and fair trial right, and deprive her of equal protection of the laws, which resulted
in her harm and injury, were done in an evil and malicious manner that is shocking to the
senses.
WHEREFORE, as fully demonstrated above, Patrick Lynn and Warden McMillan
knowingly conspired with Judge Geroulo, Judge Barrasse, Atty. LeBar, Kathleen Kane and Atty.
Brown in a malicious manner to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of her due process, liberty and fair trial
rights, and deny her equal protection of the laws, to ensure continued illegal incarceration and
conviction through a rigged trial, and they failed to prevent such deprivations, all in violation of
42 U.S.C. 1985 and 1986. Dr. Tarapchak requests judgment entered in her favor and any other
award the court deems appropriate. Dr. Tarapchak further requests punitive damages as the court
deems appropriate.
COUNT VIII
42 U.S.C.1983 claims as to Judge Geroulo, Judge Barrasse, Warden McMillan, Patrick Lynn and
Lackawanna County
Denial of right to due process and liberty
256. Paragraphs (1) through (254) are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth
in full.
66
257. Patrick Lynn, as the Director of House Arrest, is an employee of Lackawanna
County.
258. Dr. Tarapchak had due process, liberty and fair trial rights as guaranteed by the
U.S. Constitution under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Constitution at Article 1, Section 9, as relates to being arrested and
prosecuted by the Commonwealth, defended by counsel and judicially managed by the
Court.
259. Warden McMillan, as duly appointed Warden of Lackawanna County Prison, is
an employee of Lackawanna County, who holds a position of administration and authority
over Patrick Lynn. Warden McMillan is Patrick Lynn’s immediate supervisor.
260. Dr. Tarapchak had a due process right to be interviewed by Patrick Lynn only
after she was read her Miranda rights, which he did not read to her prior to exposing her to
an intensive interview regarding alleged bail violations.
261. Dr. Tarapchak had a due process right to counsel before being interviewed by
Patrick Lynn regarding alleged bail violations, and she was denied counsel by Patrick
Lynn.
262. Dr. Tarapchak had a due process right to a mandatory Bench Warrant hearing
within (72) hours before a judicial officer, which was denied by Judge Geroulo.
263. Dr. Tarapchak had a liberty right to be released from prison after she did not get a
mandatory Bench Warrant hearing within (72) hours, but she was illegally detained by
Warden McMillan for nearly a year after the Bench Warrant expired.
264. Dr. Tarapchak had a due process right to have her Rule and Petition for Habeas
Corpus relief presented and argued in a fair and judicial manner, but she was repeatedly
foreclosed from presenting and arguing her issues within the Petition when the was
judicially road-blocked by an ongoing conspiracy between her judges, her defense
lawyers and Kathleen Kane’s office, whom, by their lies or silence, guided disposition of
her Petition to mootness or rendered it ineffective.
265. Dr. Tarapchak had a due process right to a fair trial, but she was denied said right
when she was the victim of an ongoing conspiracy with judges, her defense lawyers and
Kathleen Kane’s office to deprive her of her due process, liberty and fair trial rights in
order to keep her incarcerated, where she was unable to manage and control the
67
preparation of her defense to avoid having no defense whatsoever, at to rig the trial and
assure convictions.
266. Patrick Lynn violated Dr. Tarapchak’s right to due process and liberty when he
arrested her on October 23, 2014, without a Bench Warrant or other authority, failed to
read her Miranda rights prior to intensive interrogatory session, incarcerated her to the
prison without a Bench Warrant or other commit authority, held a blatantly illegal
misconduct hearing at the prison with absolutely no judicial authority, denied counsel to
her for the illegal hearing, determined that she had violated bail conditions with absolutely
no judicial authority, recommended her continued incarceration with absolutely no
judicial authority, failed to place his blatantly illegal actions on the record for public
notice and review, and failed to serve her with a copy of the same as to completely
conceal his illegal activities pretending to have judicial authority.
267. Warden McMillan at all times knew that Patrick Lynn had absolutely no judicial
authority to incarcerate Dr. Tarapchak without a Bench Warrant issued by a judicial
officer of Lackawanna County Court; no judicial authority whatsoever to determine if she
violated bail through holding a completely unlawful and illegal hearing at the prison with
an equally non-judicial officer named CO Kelly, and no judicial authority to deny her
counsel for such illegal hearing in the prison, no authority to recommend continued
incarceration and no authority to conceal is illegal activities from the public of Dr.
Tarapchak.
268. Warden McMillan took no preventative action to stop Patrick Lynn from posing
as a judicial officer in terms of holding illegal hearings, making illegal dispositions of bail
or probation violations, and making illegal recommendations of punishment.
269. Judge Geroulo and Judge Barrasse at all times knew that Patrick Lynn had
absolutely no judicial authority to incarcerate Dr. Tarapchak without a Bench Warrant
issued by a judicial officer of Lackawanna County Court; no judicial authority whatsoever
to determine if she violated bail through holding a completely unlawful and illegal hearing
at the prison with an equally non-judicial officer named CO Kelly, and no judicial
authority to deny her counsel for such illegal hearing in the prison, no authority to
recommend continued incarceration and no authority to conceal is illegal activities from
the public of Dr. Tarapchak, but they both permitted Patrick Lynn to perform those
68
actions with no intervention to prevent him from violating her due process and liberty
rights.
270. At no time did either Judge Geroulo or Judge Barrasse take any action to reverse
the illegal and unlawful conduct of Patrick Lynn as described in the paragraph above.
271. Judge Geroulo and Judge Barrasse at all times knew that Patrick Lynn was
illegally arresting and incarcerating other defendants accused of bail violations absent any
legal authority in the nature of a Bench Warrant; interviewing them absent giving them
Miranda warnings; holding completely illegal hearings at the prison called misconduct
hearings; denying defendants of legal counsel for such illegal hearings; making decisions
as to whether or not a defendant violated bail having no lawful authority to do so; and
making recommendations to keep a defendant incarcerated indefinitely, and neither judge
did anything to stop Patrick Lynn from violating other defendant’s rights to due process
and liberty.
272. Warden McMillan violated Dr. Tarapchak’s right to liberty when he illegally
restrained her from October 23, 2014 to the present day.
273. Warden McMillan, Patrick Lynn, Judge Geroulo, Judge Barrasse and Lackawanna
County violated Dr. Tarapchak’s rights to due process and liberty guaranteed under the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
274. Dr. Tarapchak believes, and therefore avers, and the record supports, that no
proper and legal Bench Warrant, Detainer or Court Order was sought and issued to give
Warden McMillan the authority to take her into his custody at the prison and hold her
there indefinitely from October 23, 2014 to the present day.
275. Absent having a legal and proper Bench Warrant, Detainer or Court order
directing that Dr. Tarapchak shall be incarcerated, and stay incarcerated indefinitely,
Warden McMillan had no authority to take her into his custody and keep her in his
custody indefinitely.
276. At any time since at least October 27, 2014, absent having a legal and proper
Bench Warrant, Detainer or Court order directing that Dr. Tarapchak shall be
incarcerated, and stay incarcerated indefinitely, Warden McMillan had the duty at law to
release her from his custody, but he repeated failed or refused to do so in violation of her
right to due process and liberty, notwithstanding numerous legal attempts by the Plaintiff
69
to have him produce proof of his lawful authority to hold her indefinitely through filing
legal actions and grievances within the administrative process in the prison, which
attempts he refused to be cooperative with and sought protective orders, instead of
providing the commit documents or proof of authority as requested.
277. At all times relevant thereto, the repeated actions of Warden McMillan to deny
Dr. Tarapchak her right to liberty were evil and malicious with the deliberate intent to
cause her severe harm and injury.
278. Warden McMillan knew, or should have known, that his indefinite incarceration
of Dr. Tarapchak without lawful or legal authority was an ongoing violation of her liberty
rights.
279. Warden McMillan knew, or should have known, that his indefinite incarceration
of Dr. Tarapchak without lawful or legal authority was an ongoing violation of her equal
protection of laws rights.
280. Warden McMillan’s actions to keep Dr. Tarapchak incarcerated indefinitely
without lawful or legal authority were done in an evil and malicious manner with the
deliberate intent of causing her insufferable harm and injury in the nature of depriving her
of her liberty.
281. If not for Warden McMillan’s actions to keep Dr. Tarapchak incarcerated
indefinitely without lawful or legal authority done in an evil and malicious manner with
the deliberate intent of causing her insufferable harm and injury in the nature of depriving
her of her liberty, she would not have suffered the dire consequences of having her liberty
deprived for nearly one year.
282. Judge Geroulo could have released Dr. Tarapchak from prison at any time after
the Bench Warrant had expired, and he had the opportunity to do so on November 7,
2014, during a pre-trial hearing when she appeared in his courtroom long after the Bench
Warrant had expired, but he remained silent, instead of announcing her right to release.
283. Judge Barrasse could have released Dr. Tarapchak from prison at any time after
the Bench Warrant had expired, and he had the opportunity to do so on April 10, 2015,
during a pre-trial hearing when she appeared in his courtroom long after the Bench
Warrant had expired, but he remained silent, instead of announcing her right to release.
70
284. Judge Geroulo’s actions to keep Dr. Tarapchak incarcerated indefinitely without
lawful or legal authority were done in an evil and malicious manner with the deliberate
intent of causing her insufferable harm and injury in the nature of depriving her of her
liberty.
285. Judge Barrasse’s actions to keep Dr. Tarapchak incarcerated indefinitely without
lawful or legal authority were done in an evil and malicious manner with the deliberate
intent of causing her insufferable harm and injury in the nature of depriving her of her
liberty.
286. Judge Geroulo, Judge Barrasse and Warden McMillan each had a duty to release
Dr. Tarapchak from prison and each breached that duty when, after having repeated
opportunities to release her, refused to do so as to impose unlawful incarceration upon her
to deprive her of due process, liberty and fair trial rights, and equal protection of the law
rights, as to contribute to causing her trial to be rigged through influencing the verdict of
the jury.
287. At all times relevant thereto, Lackawanna County was fully responsible for the
training and supervision of Patrick Lynn, managing and monitoring his activities and for
failing to prevent him from pretending to have the judicial authority arrest persons for bail
violations without a Bench Warrant, interview them without giving a Miranda warning,
incarcerate them without a Bench Warrant, hold illegal misconduct hearings where he
determined whether bail violations occurred, and directed the Warden and various judges
to keep the person incarcerated for an indefinite period of time.
288. Lackawanna County knew, or should have known, that Patrick Lynn was
repeatedly conducting himself unlawfully under the color of judicial authority during the
performance of his duties and it did nothing to stop him, and thereby stop imposing harm
and injury to those he targeted while unlawfully playing judge and jury.
289. Lackawanna County knew, or should have known, that the repeated misconduct
of Patrick Lynn went to the benefit of reducing the work load of Lackawanna County
judges, the DA’s Office, the AG’s Office, the Public Defender’s Office, the Court
Reporter’s Office and the Probation Office, because each defendant that Patrick Lynn
arrested and adjudicated to be in violation of bail or probation didn’t have to be handled
or managed by any of the aforementioned court officials. In other words, Patrick Lynn
71
was repeatedly perpetrating a permitted fraud upon defendants under his control so that
the aforementioned court officials would have less work to do.
290. At all times relevant thereto, Judge Geroulo, Judge Barrasse, Atty. Brown,
Kathleen Kane and Atty. LeBar could have prevented a conspiracy from taking place to
deprive Dr. Tarapchak of her due process, liberty and fair trail rights and each remained
silent as to rig the trial and assure convictions, and cause her to suffer extreme harm and
injury.
WHEREFORE, for the valid reasons articulated above, Dr. Tarapchak requests judgment for
damages entered in her favor against all Defendants and any other award the court deems
appropriate. Dr. Tarapchak further requests punitive damages as the court deems appropriate.
COUNT IX
42 U.S.C.1983 claims as to Judge Geroulo, Judge Barrasse, Judge Braxton, Kathleen Kane, and
Lackawanna County
Fourteenth Amendment violations - Denial of Equal Protection of the Law
291. Paragraphs (1) through (290) are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth
in full.
292. The Fourteenth Amendment protects against the denial of equal protection of the
law.
293. Dr. Tarapchak had due process, liberty and fair trial rights as guaranteed by the
U.S. Constitution under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Constitution at Article 1, Section 9, as relates to being arrested and
prosecuted by the Commonwealth, defended by counsel and judicially managed by the
Court.
294. As comprehensively and elaborately stated above from facts of record in Counts I,
II, II, IV, V, VI and VII, Dr. Tarapchak was the target of an ongoing conspiracy involving
the Defendants named in this Count to keep her incarcerated from October 23, 2014 to the
date of her trail, September 21, 2015, and to deprive her of her numerous due process,
liberty and fair trial rights, and equal protection of the law rights, as to expose her to a
72
lengthy pre-trial incarceration, a rigged trial and assured convictions, among other
prejudices and suffering.
295. The Defendant judicial officers named in this Count had full control and authority
over all subordinate judicial officers, such as appointed counsel and deputies, as to
prevent their participation in an ongoing conspiracy to keep Dr. Tarapchak incarcerated
from October 23, 2014 to the date of her trail, September 21, 2015, and to deprive her of
her due process, liberty and fair trial rights, and equal protection of the law rights, as to
expose her to a rigged trial and ensure convictions.
296. Lackawanna County had full control and authority over Warden McMillan,
Patrick Lynn, Director of House Arrest, the Public Defender Office and all attorneys
appointed to represent Dr. Tarapchak’s defense of the charges against her, and it had a
duty to prevent their participation in an ongoing conspiracy to keep Dr. Tarapchak
incarcerated from October 23, 2014 to the date of her trail, September 21, 2015, and to
deprive her of her due process, liberty and fair trial rights, and equal protection of the law
rights, as to expose her to a rigged trial and ensure convictions, among other prejudices
and suffering
297. The Defendants named in this Count had a duty to provide Dr. Tarapchak equal
protection under the laws to prevent her from being illegally incarcerated, from being kept
illegally incarcerated, and through their participation in an ongoing conspiracy, from
being deprived of numerous due process, liberty and fair trial rights, as to expose her to a
rigged trial and ensure convictions, and failed to fulfill said duty in an evil and malicious
manner with the full deliberate intent of causing her extreme and substantial harm and
injury.
298. The Defendants named in this Count knew, or should have known, that they had a
duty to provide Dr. Tarapchak equal protection under the laws and they willfully,
deliberately and maliciously ignored that duty and exposed her to an ongoing conspiracy
as set forth above to deprive her of numerous due process, liberty and fair trial rights, as to
expose her to a rigged trial and ensure convictions, and other prejudices and suffering.
299. Kathleen Kane could have at any time prevented all of her subordinates who were
handling the prosecution of Dr. Tarapchak from participating in said ongoing conspiracy,
and failed to do so to Dr. Tarapchak’s extreme harm and injury.
73
300. Lackawanna County and all of the judges involved could have at any time
prevented all of the appointed attorneys who were handling the defense of Dr. Tarapchak
from participating in said ongoing conspiracy, and failed to do so to Dr. Tarapchak’s
extreme harm and injury.
301. Lackawanna County and all of the judges involved could have at any time
prevented Patrick Lynn and Warden McMillan from illegally arresting, interviewing and
detaining Dr. Tarapchak, and keeping her illegally detained, and failed to do so to her
extreme harm and injury.
302. If not for the Defendants named in this Count willfully and intentionally failing to
provide Dr. Tarapchak equal protection under the laws to prevent her from being illegally
arrested, interviewed and incarcerated, from being kept illegally incarcerated, and through
their participation in an ongoing conspiracy, from being deprived of numerous due
process, liberty and fair trial rights, as to expose her to a rigged trial and ensure
convictions, and failing to do so in an evil and malicious manner with the full deliberate
intent of causing her harm and injury, she wouldn’t have suffered such harm and injury.
WHEREFORE, for the valid reasons articulated above, Dr. Tarapchak requests judgment for
damages entered in her favor against all Defendants and any other award the court deems
appropriate. Dr. Tarapchak further requests punitive damages as the court deems appropriate.
COUNT X
42 U.S.C.1985 and 1986 claims as United States Magistrate Judge Joseph Saporito
Conspiracy with others to Deprive Plaintiff of Due process, Liberty and Fair Trial Rights
and Deny Equal Protection under the Laws
303. Paragraphs (1) through (302) are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth
in full.
304. On March 30, 2015, Tarapchak, while incarcerated, filed two federal complaints,
one at 3:15-CV-621 and one at 3:15-CV-635. Thereafter, Magistrate Joseph Saporito was
assigned as Magistrate Judge in both cases.
305. On March 30, 2015, Tarapchak, while incarcerated, filled out and filed an
Application for “in forma pauperis” (IFP) relief seeking to waive having to pay the filing
74
fee of $400.00 in both cases. The Application for IFP relief was provided by the Clerk’s
Office.
306. On April 1, 2015, Tarapchak, still incarcerated, received an order directing her to
either pay the filing fee or file a Prisoner’s Application for IFP, which differed from the
non-prisoner application that was first provided by the Clerk’s Office.
307. At no time was Tarapchak advised of any ancillary consequences relating to filing
for IFP relief as a prisoner in terms of procedures, as opposed to a non-prisoner. For
example, she was not advised that if IFP relief was granted, no summonses would issue
for each defendant until the full fees were paid, even if payment was accomplished by
way of small incremental debits from her commissary account at the prison, which could
take a year.
308. On April 30, 2015, Tarapchak filed the required Prisoner’s version of an
Application for IFP relief for both Complaints. In addition she filed US Marshall form
285 and AO forms 398 and 399 in both cases.
309. Also on April 30, 2015, an order was sent to the prison directing that it shall begin
to remove 20% of Tarapchak’s commissary on a monthly basis and forward that amount
to the Federal Clerk’s Office. The actual amount to be deducted was determined by
adding up all commissary contributions from the previous month and using 20% of that
total to know what to take from her account in the current month. Each month’s
deductions followed that formula.
310. On May 29, 2015, assuming she was granted IFP relief, and having not heard
from Magistrate Judge Saporito regarding service of the Complaints, Tarapchak filed a
Motion to Compel Service of the Complaint at 3:15-CV-635.
311. On June 9, 2015, Judge Saporito denied Tarapchak’s Motion to Compel, citing it
was premature because all IFP financial information had not been provided yet from
prison sources.
312. On June 9, 2015, with Tarapchak’s IFP status yet unknown, the prison removed
$71.30 from her commissary as a payment toward the filing fee in 3:15-CV-635.
313. On June 12, 2015, Judge Saporito issued an order that denied Tarapchak’s IFP
Applications in both cases, notwithstanding the fact that her Applications indicated no
cash or assets. Furthermore, he gave her credit for the $71.30 that was already removed
75
from her commissary account and ordered her to pay $328.70 within 30 days or suffer
dismissal of her Complaint. The order did not support his ruling with the citation of a
Federal Rule of Court as relates to dismissing her Complaint without prejudice. The order
also failed to direct the prison to stop removing funds from Tarapchak’s commissary
account to cover filing costs in light of the fact that the IFP was denied. See Exhibit “X”
314. On June 24, 2015, Tarapchak, still incarcerated, fearing the consequences of
having her Complaints dismissed by the Court for non-payment of the filing fee, and in an
attempt to protect her claims, filed a Praecipe to Withdraw each Complaint without
prejudice. Her experience state-side was that it was done without consequences, any
consequences.
315. On June 24, 2015, Tarapchak also sent a letter to the Court requesting the return
of the $71.30 that was wrongfully removed from her account under the IFP rules, since
the removal of funds from an inmate’s commissary account is authorized only when an
Application for IFP relief was granted.
316. On June 29, 2015, Judge Saporito denied Tarapchak’s request to refund the
$71.30 that was improperly removed from her commissary account.
317. On July 13, 2015, the Prison took $151.00 more from Tarapchak’s commissary
account and sent the money to the Federal Clerk’s Office.
318. On or about July 13, 2015, Tarapchak filed a grievance with Prison
Administration officials objecting to the removal of more funds from her commissary
citing that the Court has denied her IFP Applications, which foreclosed upon further
removal of funds. The Prison responded that it will continue to follow the Court’s order
and continue to take funds at 20% a month until ordered otherwise, notwithstanding the
fact that the prison had a copy of the order that denied the IFP Application, because
Tarapchak provided a copy.
319. On July 17, 2015, Tarapchak filed a Motion for Order directing the Lackawanna
County Prison to Immediately Cease Removing Filing Fees from Plaintiff and for a
Refund of $222.30, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which provides that the removal of funds
from a commissary begins only after an IFP Application has been granted.
320. Tarapchak heard nothing from Judge Saporito on her Motion for Order directing
the Lackawanna County Prison to Immediately Cease Removing Filing Fees from
76
Plaintiff and for Refund of $222.30, so on July 31, 2015, she appropriately filed a Motion
to Recuse Magistrate Judge Joseph Saporito in an attempt to get a fair and unbiased judge
moving forward, which Judge Saporito ignored.
321. Thereafter, over Tarapchak’s repeated objections, the prison removed several
hundred more dollars from Tarapchak’s commissary in 20% increments until the filing fee
for both Complaints were nearly satisfied.
322. On October 21, 2015 and October 23, 2015, Tarapchak filed Amended
Complaints at 3:15-CV-635 and 3:15-CV-621, respectively, believing the filing fees were
now paid, only to discover that the money that had been removed from her commissary
for several months would not be applied to the filing fees, so she’d have to pay another
$800.00 in filing fees to get summonses for each defendant, or in the alternative, expose
herself to the same IFP process under same mismanagement of the same biased judge.
323. When Judge Saporito denied Tarapchak’s request to refund the $71.30 improperly
removed from her commissary account on June 29, 2015, he was aware that the Prison
was unlawfully and without authorization at law removing private funds from her
commissary account because he was the judge who denied her IFP Application. He was
also aware that when he wrote the order denying her IFP relief that he failed to
specifically direct the prison to stop removing funds from her commissary, which was
necessary to stop removing funds because an order was previously issued to begin
removing funds while the disposition of the IFP Application was unknown.
324. On June 29, 2015, when Judge Saporito denied Tarapchak’s June 24, 2015
request to refund the $71.30 that was improperly removed from her commissary account
after her IFP Application was denied, he knew that since she had already withdrawn her
complaints, even without prejudice, then none of the money collected from her
commissary account moving forward would go toward the filing of a new complaint, or
an amended complaint, which was something that Tarapchak didn’t know when she
withdrew the two complaints without prejudice; Judge Saporito knew that all funds that
might be removed from her commissary after he denied her IFP Application would be
illegally removed money, never to be a benefit to Tarapchak in any way in terms of being
used as a filing fee. Judge Saporito took no action to prevent the prison from illegally
removing any more funds from Tarapchak’s commissary moving forward.
77
325. On July 17, 2015, when Tarapchak filed a “Motion for Order directing the
Lackawanna County Prison to Immediately Cease Removing Filing Fees from Plaintiff
and for Refund of $222.30”, Judge Saporito became aware that the prison had, in fact,
continued to illegally remove more funds from her commissary, but again, he did nothing
to stop the illegal transfers. He also knew that the prison, without a proper order from him
instructing it to cease and desist, would continue to illegally remove funds. Judge Saporito
completely ignored her Motion to Cease. He never ruled on it.
326. On the morning of October 23, 2015, after filing Amended Complaints,
Tarapchak requested summonses for each of the defendants named in 3:15-CV-621 and
3:15-CV-635, which were denied. The Clerk explained that when she withdrew the
original Complaint, even without prejudice, she voluntarily dismissed the complaints.
327. On the afternoon of October 23, 2015, Tarapchak filed a Motion to Correct the
Record by exchanging the words “voluntary dismissal” with “withdrawn without
prejudice”, pleading ignorance, and also requested the court to direct the Clerk to issue
summonses.
328. Judge Saporito denied the Motion to Correct the Record on October 27, 2015,
citing that when Tarapchak withdrew the two Complaints, even without prejudice on June
24, 2015, she unwittingly, but nonetheless voluntarily, dismissed her own complaints and
closed the cases. He wrote that he had no jurisdiction to change it in “closed” matters;
however, he adopted enough jurisdiction from somewhere to order the Clerk to open two
new cases, order Tarapchak to pay $400.00 or file another IFP within 30 days and if she
fails to do that within 30 days, then her complaints will again be dismissed. See Exhibit
“Y”, the October 27, 2015 order.
329. On October 27, 2015, jurisdiction extinguished when the cases were closed by
Tarapchak’s Motion to Withdraw without prejudice, as noted in his October 27, 2015,
order, Judge Saporito again adopted jurisdiction from somewhere and considered
Tarapchak’s “Motion to Recuse Judge Saporito”, which she filed on July 31, 2015, and
denied it. See Exhibit “Z”
330. Judge Saporito, however, once again avoided giving any judicial attention to
Tarapchak’s Motion for Order directing the Lackawanna County Prison to Immediately
Cease Removing Filing Fees from Plaintiff and for Refund of $222.30 that was filed on
78
July 31, 2015. By this time enough money had been taken from her commissary action to
cover nearly all of the filing fees.
331. The Court introduced Tarapchak to the required Prisoner’s IFP Application,
which targeted her for compliance with the prison’s 20% debit plan to collect funds
sufficient to cover the full filing fees until they were paid. However, neither the Court nor
the IFP Application advised Tarapchak that the issuance of summonses would be held in
abeyance until the full filing fees were gathered. Furthermore, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 offers no
authority to hold the summonses in abeyance until enough money is removed from an
inmate’s account at 20% per month to cover the full fee. The sheer prejudice of such an
illogical proposal supports the ludicrous nature of waiting for as much as a year, if not
longer, for a prison to collect funds from a commissary on a monthly basis at a maximum
of 20% per month before service of the complaint is made.
332. Judge Saporito knew when he issued June 12, 2015 order that denied Tarapchak’s
IFP application that the criteria he used to determine her ineligibility was inappropriate.
She had no cash or assets when she filed the Application, only a reference to arbitrary and
unreliable contributions, all non-obligatory, that were made to her commissary by friends
and family members, and not a corporate or government fund, over the previous six
months. Judge Saporito judged her ability to pay on how much friends and family had
once contributed to her commissary, with no showing of any assurances that the
contributions would somehow continue.
333. The Complaints that Tarapchak filed at 3:15-CV-621 and 3:15-CV-635 dealt with
a variety of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the Lackawanna County Prison and its
Warden, the Public Defender Office and its supervisors, L.C. House arrest and its Director
and the Commissioners, relating to the false arrest and false imprisonment of Tarapchak,
her abuse and retaliation suffered in the prison, and other deprivations to her
constitutional rights relating to due process and liberty rights.
334. It was Tarapchak’s intent to immediately serve interrogatories and requests for
documents upon certain of the defendants named in the two complaints to prove that she
was falsely arrested and falsely imprisoned on October 23, 2014, and thereafter, she was
falsely being held in prison to illegally deprive her of liberty to keep her from
participating in the preparation of her defense, but discovery was never served because of
79
Judge Saporito’s mismanagement of her IFP Application and certain motions seeking
relief from said mismanagement.
335. Simultaneous to Tarapchak struggling with IFP-related delays and procedural
problems that were imposed on Judge Saporito’s watch from March of 2015 through
October of 2015, which frustrated service of her two Complaints and discovery,
Tarapchak’s own lawyer, Bernard Brown, the Office of the Attorney General and Judge
Barrasse were advancing a conspiracy to deprive Tarapchak’s right to be released from
prison by and through controlling the filing of motions and petitions, the content thereof,
the answers thereto, and the rulings, or through silence and failure to act. See Counts I, II
and III above.
336. The conspiracy to deprive Tarapchak of her due process and liberty rights that
was being advanced by Atty. Brown, Judge Barrasse and the Attorney General faced a
serious threat of failure if Tarapchak were able to have her federal complaints served
when filed in late March of 2015, along with interrogatories and requests for documents,
because the conspiracy was fashioned to conceal, restrict and/or circumvent Tarapchak’s
availability to any legal procedure whatsoever that could facilitate showing that legal
grounds existed for her to be immediately released from prison in order that she could
participate in the preparation of her own defense; and, Tarapchak’s discovery in her
federal cases would have rooted out proof of her false arrest and false imprisonment, and
proof of her continued false imprisonment because the Warden of the L.C. Prison would
not have been able to produce any commit document, like a Bench Warrant, Detainer or
Court Order that gave him the authority to ever take her into his custody and keep her
there indefinitely while she awaited trial.
337. Judge Saporito conspired with the state-named defendants to deprive Tarapchak
of her right to due process when he denied her Prison IFP Application without cause,
thereby depriving, delaying and/or frustrating her right to immediate service of her
complaints.
338. Judge Saporito conspired with the state-named defendants to deprive Tarapchak
of her right to due process when he repeatedly delayed issuing orders, or failed to issue
proper orders required at law, ethical duty, or common sense, that could have prevented
depriving, delaying and or frustrating her right to immediate service of her complaints.
80
339. Judge Saporito conspired with the state-named defendants to deprive Tarapchak
of her right to due process when he denied her Prison IFP Application without cause,
thereby depriving, delaying and or frustrating her right to timely discovery that would
have proven she was illegally arrested and jailed, and thereafter kept illegally jailed all
during her pre-trial period for the purpose of preventing her participation in the
preparation of her trial.
340. Judge Saporito conspired with the state-named defendants to deprive Tarapchak
of her rights to due process and liberty when he willfully, intentionally and deliberately,
with malicious forethought, denied her IFP Application without cause in conflict with
statutory and case law, delayed issuing orders, or failed to issue proper orders required at
law, ethical duty, or common sense, which could have prevented depriving, delaying and
or frustrating her right to immediate service of her complaints and Discovery, and he did
so to protect the conspiracy in progress state-side by the state-named defendants that was
designed to keep Tarapchak incarcerated pre-trial to foreclose on her ability to participate
in the preparation of her own defense and rig the trial to assure convictions.
341. Judge Saporito conspired with the state-named defendants to deprive
Tarapchak of her rights to due process and liberty when, after he denied her IFP
Application and became aware that the Prison had begun taking funds from her
commissary absent authority before he ruled on the IFP Application, he took no action to
prevent further unauthorized debit removal, thereby green-lighting ongoing debit
collections and depleting her resources.
342. Judge Saporito conspired with the state-named defendants to deprive Tarapchak
of her rights to due process and liberty when he ignored Tarapchak’s Motion to Direct
Prison to Cease Illegal Fund Removal, thereby green-lighting ongoing debit collections by
the Prison and causing an unauthorized depletion of her fee resources.
343. Judge Saporito conspired with the state-named defendants to deprive Tarapchak
of her rights to due process and liberty when, after he learned that the Prison took several
hundred dollars more absent legal authority, he failed to issue an order directing a full and
immediate refund to her commissary, which resulted in Tarapchak losing approximately
$700.00 from her commissary, since none of those funds were applied to her filing fee
when she filed her Amended Complaints.
81
344. Judge Saporito conspired with the state-named defendants to deprive Tarapchak
of her rights to due process and liberty when he used his authority to mismanage
Tarapchak’s financial obligations and resources for filing fees in a manner contrary to law
and duty to distance her from getting summonses and serving the complaints, and
simultaneously propounding interrogatories and request for documents upon defendants
Warden McMillan and House Arrest Director Patrick Lynn.
345. Judge Saporito’s actions to conspire with state-named defendants were successful
to the extent that Tarapchak never had summonses issued, never had her complaints
served and never had the opportunity to propound interrogatories and requests for
documents upon Warden McMillan and House Arrest Director Patrick Lynn,
notwithstanding the fact that he Prison IFP Application showed very little cash and no
assets.
346. Judge Saporito’s actions to conspire with state-named defendants were successful
to the extent that Tarapchak was deprived of due process, liberty and fair trial rights in her
criminal matter, which resulted in a conspiracy-for-conviction trial where she was
convicted, largely due to her being kept illegally incarcerated pre-trial.
347. Judge Saporito had the authority to prevent Tarapchak from suffering any
deprivation of due process, liberty and fair trial rights through federal system process and
procedures by following the law, his duty and the Rules of Judicial Conduct, but instead,
he willfully, intentionally and deliberately, with malice, chose a path of dereliction,
negligence and irresponsibility to participate in a conspiracy to stonewall Tarapchak’s
attempt to be released from prison so she could participate in her own defense.
348. Judge Saporito knew, or should have known, that his participation in a conspiracy
to distance Tarapchak from her due process rights to Service of the two complaints with
interrogatories and requests for documents would result in the deprivation of her right to
liberty, full pre-trial incarceration and exclusion from participating in the preparation of
her defense, and thus the deprivation of a right to a fair trial.
349. If not for Judge Saporito’s participation in a conspiracy to distance Tarapchak
from her due process rights to Service of the two complaints with interrogatories and
requests for documents, which resulted in the deprivation of her right to liberty, full pre-
82
trial incarceration and exclusion from participating in the preparation of her defense, she
wouldn’t have suffered deprivation of a right to a fair trial.
WHEREFORE, for the valid reasons articulated above, Dr. Tarapchak requests judgment for
damages entered in her favor against the Defendant and any other award the court deems
appropriate. Dr. Tarapchak further requests punitive damages as the court deems appropriate.
Count XI
42 U.S.C. 1983 claims as to Patrick Lynn and Warden McMillan
Fourth Amendment violations – False arrest and false imprisonment
350. Paragraphs (1) through (349) are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth
in full.
351. Tarapchak avers that Lynn did not have legal authority to arrest her on the
morning of October 23, 2014, as he did seek and obtain an appropriate Bench Warrant
from Judge Geroulo or any other judicial office.
352. Tarapchak avers that Lynn was not authorized at law to arrest her on the morning
of October 23, 2014.
353. Tarapchak avers that Lynn was not authorized to incarcerate her on the morning
of October 23, 2014.
354. Tarapchak avers that Warden McMillan did not have the legal authority to accept
her in the Lackawanna County Prison on the morning of October 23, 2014, absent an
appropriate Bench Warrant.
355. Tarapchak avers that Warden McMillan did not have the legal authority to keep
her incarcerated from October 23, 2014 to October 5, 2015, the last day of her trial.
356. Tarapchak avers that even if the Warden had the authority to accept her as a
prisoner on October 23, 2014, since she did not have a Bench Warrant hearing within (72)
hours, he was required to release her as a matter of law and failed to do so.
357. Tarapchak avers that the conduct of Lynn and the Warden violated her Fourth
Amendment rights and caused her substantial harm and injury in the nature of pain and
suffering from illegal incarceration, to include deprivation from preparation of trial.
83
358. Tarapchak avers that the conduct of Lynn and the Warden to arrest and
incarcerate her, and keep her incarcerated, was at all times willfully, intentionally and
deliberately malicious, part and parcel as political retaliation and to help rig her trial.
359. If not for the maliciously willful, intentional and deliberate conduct of Lynn and
the Warden to arrest and incarcerate her, and keep her incarcerated, Tarapchak would not
have suffered false arrest and false imprisonment from October 23, 2014 to October 5,
2014, the last day of her trial.
WHEREFORE, Tarapchak requests an award of judgment in her favor and any other relief
the court deems appropriate. In addition, Tarapchak requests punitive damages from each
defendant.
Count XII
42 U.S.C. 1983 claims as to Warden McMillan as an individual
Fourth Amendment violation – false imprisonment
360. Paragraphs (1) through (359) are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth
in full.
361. At all times relevant thereto, Warden McMillan acted outside the scope of his
authority when he accepted Tarapchak as a prisoner without a Bench Warrant or other
commit authority document and he illegally held her in his custody for one year.
362. At all times relevant thereto, Warden McMillan knew he was acting outside the
scope of his authority when he accepted Tarapchak as a prisoner without a Bench Warrant
or other commit authority document and he illegally held her in his custody for one year.
363. If not for Warden McMillan acting outside the scope of his authority when he
accepted Tarapchak as a prisoner without a Bench Warrant or other commit authority
document and held her in his custody for one year she would not have suffered
incarceration for one year.
364. The actions of Warden McMillan were in the nature of political retaliation.
365. At all times relevant thereto, Warden McMillan’s conduct was willfully,
intentionally and deliberately malicious with the intent to cause Tarapchak harm and
injury in the nature of pain and suffering, to include deprivation of preparation for trial.
84
WHEREFORE, Tarapchak requests an award of judgment in her favor and any other
relief the court deems appropriate. In addition, Tarapchak requests punitive damages.
COUNT XIII
42 U.S.C. 1983 claims as to Patrick Lynn as an individual
Fourth Amendment violations – false arrest and imprisonment
366. Paragraphs (1) through (365) are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth
in full.
367. At all times relevant thereto, Lynn acted outside the scope of his authority when
he arrested Tarapchak and incarcerated her on October 23, 2014.
368. At all times relevant thereto, Lynn knew, or should have known, he was acting
outside the scope of his authority when he arrested Tarapchak and incarcerated her on
October 23, 2014, causing her substantial harm and injury.
369. At all times relevant thereto, Lynn’s conduct was willfully, intentionally and
deliberately malicious with the intent to cause Tarapchak harm and injury in the nature of
pain and suffering, to include deprivation of preparation for trial.
370. Lynn’s actions were in the nature of political retaliation.
371. If not for Lynn acting outside the scope of his authority when he arrested and
incarcerated Tarapchak on October 23, 2014, Tarapchak would not have suffered
indefinite incarceration and all attendant pain and suffering.
WHEREFORE, Tarapchak requests an award of judgment in her favor and any other
relief the court deems appropriate. In addition, Tarapchak requests punitive damages.
COUNT XIV
42 U.S.C. 1983 claims as to Patrick Lynn as an individual
Fifth Amendment violations - deprivation of due process rights
372. Paragraphs (1) through (371) are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth
in full.
85
373. At all times relevant thereto, Lynn acted outside the scope of his authority when,
absent any judicial authority, he held an illegal hearing on October 24, 2014, and
determined that Tarapchak had violated bail conditions.
374. At all times relevant thereto, Lynn knew, or should have known, he was acting
outside the scope of his authority when, absent any judicial authority, he held an illegal
hearing and determined that Tarapchak had violated bail conditions.
375. At all times relevant thereto, Lynn knew, or should have known, he was acting
outside the scope of his authority when, absent any judicial authority, he held an illegal
hearing and determined that Tarapchak had violated bail conditions, and recommended
that she remain incarcerated, which the Warden did, and indefinitely.
376. Lynn knew, or should have known, that he was depriving Tarapchak of her due
process rights when he failed to give her Miranda rights before interrogating her and
denied her demand for counsel before interrogating her.
377. At all times relevant thereto, Lynn’s conduct was willfully, intentionally and
deliberately malicious with the intent to cause Tarapchak harm and injury.
378. Lynn’s actions were in nature political retaliation.
379. If not for Lynn acting outside the scope of his authority when held an illegal
hearing on October 24, 2014, and determined that Tarapchak had violated bail conditions,
and recommended that she remain incarcerated, which the Warden did, and indefinitely,
Tarapchak would not have suffered indefinite incarceration causing harm and injury in the
nature of pain and suffering, to include deprivation of preparation of trial.
WHEREFORE, Tarapchak requests an award of judgment in her favor and any other relief
the court deems appropriate. In addition, Tarapchak requests punitive damages.
COUNT XV
42 U.S.C. 1983 claims as to County, Patrick Lynn and Warden McMillan
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment violations – deprivation of liberty
380. Paragraphs (1) through (379) are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth
in full.
86
381. Tarapchak avers that the above-named defendants violated her Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendment right to liberty when they illegally detained her in the
Lackawanna County Prison from October 23, 2014 to October 5, 2015.
382. Tarapchak avers that the above-named Defendants had no legal or lawful
authority to detain her in the Lackawanna County Prison (Prison), or transfer her to the
Luzerne County Prison, from October 23, 2014 to October 5, 2015.
383. The above-named defendants knew, or should have known, that they were
unlawfully and illegally detaining Tarapchak in the Prison from October 23, 2014 to
October 5, 2015, to her harm and injury.
384. The above-named defendants had a duty to release Tarapchak from the Prison, at
the minimum, from the Prison on or about October 27, 2014, when she was not given a
Bench Warrant hearing within (72) hours as prescribed by law, and breached that duty,
causing her harm and injury.
385. The above-named defendants knew, or should have known, that Tarapchak should
have been released after she was not given a Bench Warrant hearing within (72) hours as
prescribed by law, and failed to do so in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments.
386. The above-named defendants acted willfully, intentionally and deliberately in a
malicious manner to detain Tarapchak in Prison from on or about October 27, 2014, at the
minimum, to October 5, 2015, resulting in her deprivation of liberty to cause her harm and
injury in the nature of pain and suffering, to include deprivation of preparation for trial.
387. If not for the above-named defendants acting willfully, intentionally and
deliberately in a malicious manner to detain Tarapchak in Prison from on or about
October 27, 2014, at the minimum, to October 5, 2015, she would not have been deprived
of her liberty and suffered all accumulated mental and emotional pain and suffering
intimate to said incarceration, to include deprivation of preparation of trial.
388. The actions of the above-named defendants were at all times, among other things,
for the purposes of political retaliation.
389. The actions of the above-named defendants were at all times, among other things,
for the purposes of interfering with her rights to a fair trial, and the preparation thereof.
87
WHEREFORE, Tarapchak requests an award of judgment in her favor and any other relief
the court deems appropriate. In addition, Tarapchak requests punitive damages from each
defendant.
COUNT XVI
42 U.S.C. 1983 claims as to Warden McMillan, as an individual
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment violation – deprivation of Liberty
390. Paragraphs (1) through (389) are hereby incorporated by
reference as if set forth in full.
391. At all times relevant thereto, Warden McMillan knew he was
acting outside the scope of his authority when he illegally held Tarapchak in his custody
at the Lackawanna County Prison from on or about October 27, 2014 to October 5,
2015.
392. If not for Warden McMillan acting outside the scope of his
authority when he illegally held Tarapchak in his custody at the Lackawanna County
Prison from on or about October 27, 2014 to October 5, 2015, her Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights would not have been violated resulting in her illegal incarceration
during that period of time and resulting in her harm and injury.
393. If not for Warden McMillan acting outside the scope of his
authority when he held Tarapchak in his custody at the Lackawanna County Prison from
on or about October 27, 2014 to October 5, 2015, her Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights would not have been violated resulting in deprivation of preparation for trial.
394. At all times relevant thereto, Warden McMillan acted
intentionally, willfully and deliberately in a malicious manner to cause Tarapchak pain
and suffering, to include deprivation of preparation of trial.
395. If not for Warden McMillan acting intentionally, willfully and
deliberately in a malicious manner to cause Tarapchak pain and suffering, to include
deprivation of preparation of trial, she would not have suffered accordingly.
396. The actions of Warden McMillan were in the nature of political
retaliation.
88
397. As the direct and proximate result of Tarapchak being illegally
incarcerated by Warden McMillan she was deprived of participating in the preparation of
trial and she suffered convictions of the charges on October 5, 2015.
WHEREFORE, Tarapchak requests an award of judgment in her favor and any other relief
the court deems appropriate. In addition, Tarapchak requests punitive damages.
COUNT XVII
42 U.S.C. 1983 claims as to Warden McMillan
Eighth Amendment violations – Cruel and Unusual Punishment
398. Paragraphs (1) through (397) are hereby incorporated by
reference as if set forth in full.
399. Tarapchak was imprisoned at the Lackawanna County Prison
from January 2, 2014 through May 2, 2014, and from October 23, 2014 through October
5, 2015.
400. At all times relevant thereto, Warden McMillan was in charge of
Tarapchak’s provisions, care, welfare and treatment as required by Pa Code Title 37,
Chapter 95, relating to Department of Corrections, and the Lackawanna County Prison
Handbook, relating to provisions, care, welfare and treatment of inmates.
401. At all times relevant thereto, Warden McMillan owed Tarapchak
a duty of care.
402. While incarcerated at the Prison, Tarapchak suffered the
following mistreatment, lack of care and lack of provisions from Warden McMillan that
arose to a breach of duty of care, to include, in no particular order:
a. Improper and insufficient heat;
b. Improper and insufficient medical treatment;
c. Improper and inadequate clothing and footwear;
d. Theft or mishandling of mail, mail not delivered or sent;
e. Denial of use of Law Library;
f. Denial of Copy Cards;
g. Inadequate or insufficient recreation;
89
h. Denial of religious rights;
i. Repeated unjust lock downs, punished for misconduct of others;
j. Repeated ransacking of her cell by guards, removal of legal papers;
k. Repeated observation by male guards while showering;
l. Repeated imposition of male guards entering the block without announcement;
m. Repeated denial of visitation, and/or abbreviated visitation time;
n. Repeated denial of right to call counsel;
o. Repeated exposure to filth in cell;
p. Insufficient and inadequate access to counselors;
q. Repeated verbal abuse from guards;
r. Repeated loss of sleep from guards intentionally slamming doors;
s. Repeated loss of sleep from freezing temperatures;
t. Repeated removal of legal documents from her cell;
u. Mail from legal counsel repeatedly opened;
v. Repeated insufficiency of menstrual, sanitary and hygienic necessities;
w. Denial of necessary dental care;
x. Repeated transportation to courthouse in freezing weather without adequate
protective clothing, and in a freezing cold vehicle;
y. Failure to give proper grievance and appeal instructions and providing a Handbook
that did not provide information to preserve an inmate’s federal rights, in other
words, inmate was unaware that failure to exhaust administrative relief would
result in loss of federal claims;
z. Repeated denial of liberty and/or refusal to show why she was being held.
403. Warden McMillan knew, or should have known, that he was
violating Tarapchak’s Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment,
which resulted in her substantial harm and injury in the nature of mental and emotional
pain and suffering.
404. At all times relevant thereto the actions of Warden McMillan
were willfully, intentionally and deliberated done in a malicious manner to violate
Tarapchak’s Eighth Amendment rights, and for the purposes of political retaliation.
90
405. If not for Warden McMillan violating Tarapchak’s Eighth
Amendment rights, she would not have suffered the violations articulated above as the
result of his negligence, and breach of duty of care.
WHEREFORE, Tarapchak requests an award of judgment in her favor and any other relief
the court deems appropriate. In addition, Tarapchak requests punitive damages.
COUNT XVIII
42 U.S.C. 1983 claims as to all defendants named in Counts XI through XVII
Fourteenth Amendment violations – Deprivation of Equal Protection under the law
406. Paragraphs (1) through (405) are hereby incorporated by
reference as if set forth in full.
407. At all times relevant thereto, Tarapchak had a Fourteenth
Amendment right to Protection under the law against all of the violations and deprivations
to her constitutional, state and federal rights as enumerated in all of the paragraphs above.
408. At all times relevant thereto, the defendants knew, or should have
known, they had a duty at law to provide equal protection of law to Tarapchak and they
breached that duty, resulting in her substantial harm and injury as articulated above, to
include deprivation of preparation for trial.
409. At all times relevant thereto, the defendants acted intentionally,
willfully and deliberately in a malicious manner to violate Tarapchak’s Fourteenth
Amendment rights to equal protection under the law, to include due process and liberty
rights, causing her substantial harm and injury in the nature of mental and emotional pain
and suffering, to include deprivation of preparation for trial.
410. The actions of the defendants named above were in nature
political retaliation and to deprive her of constitutionally guaranteed due process, liberty
and fair trial rights.
411. If not for the defendants acting intentionally, willfully and
deliberately in a malicious manner to violate Tarapchak’s rights to equal protection under
the law, she would not have suffered violations and deprivations to constitutional, state
and federal laws as enumerated in all of the paragraphs above.
91
412. If not for the defendants breaching the duties they owed to
Tarapchak, they wouldn’t have repeatedly violated Tarapchak’s rights to equal protection
under the law and she would not have repeatedly suffered violations and deprivations to
constitutional, state and federal laws as enumerated in all of the paragraphs above to her
substantial harm and injury.
WHEREFORE, Tarapchak requests an award of judgment in her favor and any other
relief the court deems appropriate. In addition, Tarapchak requests punitive damages from
each of the defendants.
COUNT XIX
42 U.S.C. 1985 and 1986 claims as to Atty. Nicholas Kravitz, County and Warden McMillan
Conspiracy with others to Deprive Plaintiff of Due Process, Liberty and Fair Trial Rights
and Deny Equal Protection of the Laws to rig a trial.
413. Paragraphs (1) through (412) are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth
in full.
414. On July 6, 2015, Tarapchak filed a civil Rule and Petition for Habeas Corpus
relief at 15-CV-4207, against Warden McMillan, challenging his right to hold her in
prison.
415. On August 5, 2015, Atty. Kravitz appeared at a hearing before Judge Barrasse to
represent Warden McMillan to argue in opposition Tarapchak’s Motion to Make Rule
Absolute relating to a Rule to Show Cause and Petition in support thereof seeking Habeas
Corpus relief, which Warden McMillan, as named Defendant, failed to file an answer.
Warden McMillan didn’t file an answer to the Motion to Make Rule Absolute, either.
416. Atty. Kravitz entered the courtroom from Judge Barrasse’s chambers with Atty.
Brown and Atty. LeBar.
417. Atty. Kravitz appeared to argue without giving Tarapchak any notice.
418. Atty. Kravitz appeared to argue not having filed an appearance on the record.
92
419. Atty. Kravitz appeared to argue not having filed any answers or objections to
Tarapchak’s Rule and Petition for Habeas Corpus relief or her Motion to Make Rule
Absolute, in essence, having no right to appear to argue anything.
420. Judge Barrasse not only allowed Atty. Kravitz to appear and argue, but after he
was finished speaking, he completely ignored Tarapchak’s rights to objection to his
appearance and his argument. In fact, Judge Barrasse didn’t even ask her if she had any
idea that Atty. Kravitz was going to appear.
421. Atty. Kravitz offered argument that the issues raised in Tarapchak’s Petition for
Habeas Corpus relief were already presented, argued and disposed of by the court, which
was a patently false statement.
422. Atty. Kravitz appeared and argued on April 5, 2015, at the request of Judge
Barrasse, Atty. Brown and Atty. LeBar because Warden McMillan was unrepresented and
they needed Atty. Kravitz to appear and place false statements on the record in support of
their ongoing conspiracy to deprive Tarapchak of due process, liberty and fair trial rights.
423. Atty. Kravitz knew, or should have known, that he was taking part in a conspiracy
with Judge Barrasse, Atty. Brown, Warden McMillan and Atty. LeBar to deprive
Tarapchak of due process, liberty and fair trial rights for the purpose of keeping her
incarcerated pre-trial and debilitating her opportunity to participate in the preparation of
her trial as to rig the trial and assure convictions.
424. As the proximate cause and result of Atty. Kravitz’s un-noticed appearance and
false statements to the court, Tarapchak suffered severe prejudice and an improper denial
of her Motion to Make Rule Absolute.
425. As the proximate cause and result of Atty. Kravitz’s participation in a conspiracy
to deprive Tarapchak of due process, liberty and fair trial rights for the purpose of keeping
her incarcerated pre-trial and debilitating her opportunity to participate in the preparation
of her trial as to rig the trial and assure convictions, she was subjected to a fully rigged
trial and suffered multiple convictions.
426. Atty. Kravitz’s participation in a conspiracy with Judge Barrasse, Atty. Brown,
Warden McMillan and Atty. LeBar to deprive Tarapchak of due process, liberty and fair
trial rights for the purpose of keeping her incarcerated pre-trial and debilitating her
opportunity to participate in the preparation of her trial as to rig the trial and assure
93
convictions was willful, malicious, intentional and deliberate to cause Tarapchak harm
and injury.
427. Atty. Kravitz violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules of Civil
Procedure when he appeared unannounced at the hearing before Judge Barrasse on
August 5, 2015, not having entered an appearance on the record, no having entered any
answers or objections on the record, not having given Tarapchak any notice whatsoever of
his appearance, and then presented argument on behalf of Warden McMillan predicated in
falsity in opposition to her Petition for Habeas Corpus relief and Motion to Make Rule
Absolute.
428. If not for Atty. Kravitz’s ambush-style participation in a conspiracy with Judge
Barrasse, Atty. Brown, Warden McMillan and Atty. LeBar to deprive Tarapchak of due
process, liberty and fair trial rights, she wouldn’t have suffered severe prejudice or a
ruling against her Motion to Make Rule Absolute, and thereby would have been released
from incarceration with some time left to participate in the preparation of her defense.
429. Atty. Kravitz could have prevented his participation in a conspiracy with a Judge
Barrasse, Atty. Brown, Warden McMillan and Atty. LeBar to deprive Tarapchak of due
process, liberty and fair trial rights by merely refusing to participate, but he failed to do so
to the harm and injury of Tarapchak.
WHEREFORE, Tarapchak requests an award of judgment in her favor and any other relief
the court deems appropriate. In addition, Tarapchak requests punitive damages from all of the
defendants.
COUNT XX
Joseph Pilchesky as to Judge Michael Barrasse
Violations to Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments – deprivation due process rights
430. Paragraphs (1) through (429) are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth
in full.
431. On September 15, 2015, Pilchesky filed a Motion to Supplement Atty. Brown as
Counsel and a voluminous brief in support thereof on behalf of Dr. Tarapchak.
94
432. On September 18, 2015, during argument of a Defendant’s Motion in Limine,
Judge Barrasse confronted Pilchesky and asked him to explain what authority he had to
file a Motion to Supplement Counsel on behalf of Dr. Tarapchak, to which Pilchesky
responded that since she’s incarcerated, she has a right to have a “Next Friend” prepare
and submit legal papers that she can’t otherwise get filed herself. Judge Barrasse ordered
Pilchesky to file a Brief to support his position, which he did. See Exhibit “I”
433. At the September 18, 2015, Judge Barrasse also openly threatened Dr. Tarapchak
with having no lawyer at all if she wasn’t happy with Atty. Brown. He gave her no
opportunity to argue why she wanted a new lawyer. Furthermore, she also filed a Motion
for Counsel to represent her on her Motion to Supplement Counsel, which Judge Barrasse
completely ignored.
434. On September 21, 2015, at a scheduled final pre-trial hearing, Judge Barrasse
gave neither Dr. Tarapchak nor Joseph Pilchesky any opportunity to argue on behalf of
the serious accusations of conspiracy by Atty. Brown to rig the trial, his dishonest and
unethical conduct over the previous six months and his grossly ineffective counsel over
the previous six-months. He provided no opportunity to place Atty. Brown on the stand
and directly examine him. While Dr. Tarapchak would have struggled with that direct
examination, Joseph Pilchesky would not have.
435. The opportunity for Dr. Tarapchak and Joseph Pilchesky to argue the Motion to
Supplement Counsel would have placed on the record all the reprehensible, disgusting and
despicable things that Atty. Brown did to Dr. Tarapchak pretrial to sabotage her defense
and rig the trial for conviction.
436. Joseph Pilchesky could have placed Dr. Tarapchak on the stand to explain to the
court how Atty. Brown conspired to deprive her of due process, liberty and fair trial
rights.
437. In fact, Joseph Pilchesky would have called Atty. LeBar to the stand and elicited
from him how he clearly and willfully participated in a conspiracy with Atty. Brown and
the court to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of due process, liberty and fair trial rights to rig the
trial to assure convictions.
438. Judge Barrasse announced in open court that he issued an order that denied Dr.
Tarapchak’s Motion to Supplement Counsel. He proposed that Joseph Pilchesky had no
95
standing to file the Motion to Supplement Count because 1.) Dr. Tarapchak wasn’t
deemed mentally incompetent; 2.) There is no proof that she couldn’t have prepared the
Motion to Supplement Counsel and its 300-page Brief herself from a prison cell; and 3.)
Her case is not a capital murder case. He provided legal precedent for his decision in the
footer. See Exhibit “K”
439. Judge Barrasse offered Commonwealth v. Haag, 809 A.2d 271, 278 (2002),
citing Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990) to support his claim that Dr. Tarapchak
had to be deemed mentally incompetent in order for Joseph Pilchesky to appear on her
behalf and litigate. However, both of his citations provide that “Next Friend” status can
granted by any of three separate factors. The first is inaccessibility, meaning incarcerated,
i.e., one cannot just walk out the door of the prison at his or her leisure and file legal
papers and thereafter appear in court. The second is mental incompetence. The third is a
disability other than incarceration or mental incompetence must exist. In each instance,
the “Next Friend” must be a person in a significant relationship with the real party in
interest.
1. Judge Barrasse’s citations of cases that are capital murder cases are misplaced. His own
citations of Haag and Whitmore, supra, demonstrate that any case of any nature can
involve granting someone standing as a “Next Friend”. See See In re Heidnik, 554 Pa.
177, 720 A.2d 1016 (1998), Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 110 S.Ct. 1717, 109
L.Ed.2d 135 (1990) , Dellacasse v. Floyd, 332 Pa. 218, 2 A.2d 860 (Pa.1938) ; Freiler v.
Kear, 126 Pa. 470, 17 A. 668 (1889) and Com. v. Haag, 809 A. 2d 271 - Pa: Supreme
Court 2002.
440. Judge Barrasse denied Dr. Tarapchak and Joseph Pilchesky their due process right
to a hearing on their Motion to Supplement Counsel because it would have disclosed on
the record, and in open court, from the mouths of Atty. Brown, Att. LeBar and Dr.
Tarapchak via sworn testimony, that Atty. Brown had been in collusion with Judge
Barrasse and Atty. LeBar for six months to deprive Dr. Tarapchak of due process, liberty
and fair trial rights to rig her trial and assure convictions, perhaps even to sabotage
appeals.
96
441. Judge Barrasse’s actions were a direct violation of Joseph Pilchesky’s right to be
heard on an important and critical matter of exposing a six-month old conspiracy
involving Judge Barrasse, Atty. Brown and Atty. LeBar to rig the trial of Dr. Tarapchak.
In a desperate last act as the presiding judge in this matter, Judge Barrasse
Respectfully submitted,
Stephanie Tarapchak, Plaintiff Joseph Pilchesky, Next Friend, Plaintiff
1371 N. Washington Ave. 819 Sunset St.
Scranton, PA 18509 Scranton, PA 18509
(570-591-4300)
Verification
This is to verify that the statements made herein are true and correct to the best of our belief,
knowledge and information. We understand that our statements are subject to Pa 18 4904,
relating to Unsworn Falsification to Authorities
Date: October 21, 2015
97