Over the weekend, I received a packet sent anonymously to me, including a filing in the federal case that former custody master Lisa Tresslar has filed against Northampton County's court. In that case, Tresslar has argued that she was constructively terminated by the courts because of her vocal opposition to changes in the way custody cases were being handled. Instead of being concerned about the lives of children, her argument was that some judges were instead focused on insulating themselves from information that could raise red flags, giving themselves plausible deniability in the event a child was abused. Discovery has apparently concluded, and before competing motions for summary judgment are filed, the matter has been referred to a federal magistrate to see of the parties can settle. So I was a bit surprised that anyone would want to send me anything related to the case. I was, however, even more surprised about what it reveals. Stan Margle, the very attorney who is facing multiple drug charges, has apparently become a key witness.
What I was sent was a motion filed by defendant Judge Craig Dally and Court Administrator Jermaine Greene. [I will refer to them collectively as defendant judges, since most of what Tresslar complains about involve other judges, not Judge Dally]. Though this defense was never raised before, they now contend they made changes in the way custody cases were being handled because Tresslar, as custody master, was biased in favor of Margle. Instead of acting as a "neutral court employee," she engaged in numerous conversations about pending cases with him without the knowledge or consent of opposing counsel or the court. In one text message, she is quoted as saying she "wanted to have [Attorney Margle's baby]."
Defendant judges now want to use this apparent bias as an affirmative defense. And someone on their side of this dispute wanted to make sure I was aware of this favoritism.
After receiving this packet, I went on PACER to see for myself what is going on in this case. True enough, the defendant judges do want to muddy Tresslar up as some sort of harlot cavorting with an attorney who is also a criminal defendant in two separate drug cases involving cocaine or paraphernalia he left behind at the courthouse. But Tresslar has a response to their motion.
She points out that Margle was her attorney when she had her own custody dispute 16 years ago, and they became friends. She said that President Judge Steve Baratta, who hired her, has testified that her relationship with Margle presented no conflict and she had no duty to disclose it. She nevertheless disclosed her relationship with Margle in every matter in which he was involved.
As far as ex parte conversations go, Tresslar was acting as a mediator and was specifically directed to engage "in ex parte communications with custody litigants and engage in back-and-forth shuttle diplomacy in an attempt to bond with litigants and get them to trust her recommendations."
As if this were not enough, former President Judge Michael V. Koury sought and obtained an opinion from the Ethics Committee of the Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges, stating that Tresslar's ex parte communications with Margle were perfectly permissible as long as Tresslar disclosed that she regularly engaged in ex parte communications with litigants as part of the court's mediation process. Judge Baratta and numerous attorneys have testified ... that Tresslar fully disclosed that she regularly engaged in ex parte communications with litigants, including Margle, as part of the court's mediation process."
It appears to me that Defendant Judges are simply trying to slur Tresslar for doing precisely what she was authorized to do.
Amazingly, what I also learned from looking at the PACER docket entries is that, in addition to being Tresslar's former attorney, Margle also represented Defendant Judge Jennifer Sletvold. According to Judge Sletvold, Margle represented her in "various matters." She was so concerned about her own relationship with Margle that she actually made sure she had yet another attorney present when Margle was deposed so that he could assert attorney-client privilege if Margle was questioned in detail.
So Margle, an accused drug defendant, represented both the former custody master and one of the very judges about whom Tresslar has based her lawsuit.
Since Margle represented one of the judges in "various matters," I wonder whether an outside jurist should be asked to handle his case. Since our judges are so concerned about the appearance of bias, perhaps they should look at themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment