Up until now, I thought I was the only local blogger with a death wish. But after reading some recent entries at LVPoliblog, it looks like Chris Casey has put himself on the endangered species list, too. He's begun to ask some hard questions about Lehigh County District Attorney Jim Martin. Incidentally, Martin is the 2006 president of the Pa. District Attorneys Association.If nothing else, Casey's posts should take some of the heat off me. Finally! Now maybe I can start blogging about my real passion - woodpeckers.
1. Martin's unopposed re-election bid.
Casey tells us Democratic lawyers fear the DA. "[T]he overwhelming conclusion is that once you cross Jim Martin and the Judges in Lehigh County, you can kiss any hope of getting clients or meaningful legal work goodbye." I just don't buy that. Martin is a very popular DA, and few attorneys want to wage an expensive losing campaign.
2. Martin's real estate venture.
Casey questions whether it is ethical for Martin, a District Attorney with an annual salary of $134,293, to also have a 16.66% interest in SMS Properties LLC, which receives rent from Allentown law firm Stevens & Johnson. Casey asks, "Is it a way for Stevens and Johnson to transfer income to James Martin without him being a partner in the firm?"
As a matter of law, this is entirely ethical. Martin in fact lists this interest on his own financial disclosure. But it bothers me when I see supposedly full-time public officials with all kinds of outside revenue, like Northampton County's own court administrator. Full-time should mean full time. But is Martin really considered full time?
Casey claims state law prohibits a DA from being a partner in a law firm. I am unaware of any such law. And Lehigh County's Home Rule Charter specifically permits both its commissioners and DA to hold other jobs.
So I just don't know whether Casey has this one right. I'm sure a commenter will set us both straight.
But even if Casey is in Neverland on that one, I'm still bothered that Martin has a real estate interest so close to the Lehigh County court expansion. During the discussions leading up to this project, Martin had actually threatened the Cunningham administration with a criminal negligence prosecution. That was a shameful abuse of his office. Now it's apparent that Martin's real estate holdings, located so near the courthouse, will appreciate in value with the courthouse expansion.
Did Martin really give a rat's ass about a new courthouse or was he just interested in increasing the value of his real estate holding?
3. Serial killer Charles Cullen
Casey also criticizes Martin's investigation of serial killer Charles Cullen, the killer nurse, and St. Luke's Hospital, as unenthusiastic. Stevens & Johnson represents St. Luke's. In fact, Martin has vigorously resisted efforts by St. Luke's victims to look at his now closed investigative file.
Casey believes Martin should have recused himself from participating in any investigation of Charles Cullen "because of his (Jim Martin's) shared financial interest in property with the partners in the firm representing St. Luke's Hospital."
Casey's right. Regardless whether Martin made the right call, this presents an appearance of impropriety. He probably should have stepped aside.
4. Favoritism?
Finally, William Villa, father of a 25 year-old woman killed by a drunk driver, claims Martin showed favoritism to his daughter's killer because he was the son of a prominent local attorney. That's really hard to know without looking at how similar cases are handled.
What's Martin's side of the story? Casey stated Tuesday that he has called the DA, and is waiting for a return call.
Whether these allegations pan out or not, it's nice to see someone is finally asking questions in Lehigh County. These questions, by themselves, hurt no one. They make our government better. It's the failure to ask them that causes the real damage.
you have an interest in wooden peckers?
ReplyDeleteToo many splinters.
ReplyDeletePart of the prohibition deals with the sharing of fees. With some exceptions, "a lawyer shall not divide a fee for legal services with another lawyer who is not in the same firm" (Rule 1.5) That would appearantly preclude a lawyer, who is not in the firm, (i.e. the DA) from receiveing a share of profits from the law firm's activities. The exception involve referal fees or where the non-affliated lawyer actually did some work on the case. The other prohibitions involve conflicts of interest. If I am to summarize Casey's critique, the District Attorney should not receive payments directly or indirectly from Counsel for the person or firm who is the subject of his criminal investigation. Do you need a rule for that? I'd say look at 1.7 and 1.8
ReplyDeleteRegarding the shamefully obvious favoritism D.A. Jim Martin tried (unsuccessfully) to wield for the homicidal drunk driver who killed my daughter Sheena (and Bernie, all I can say is, you had to be there), we were able to thwart Mr. Martin's cronyism efforts and conspiracy to obstruct justice by bombing him (and Judge Steinberg) with hundreds of letters from supporters known collectively as "The Sheena Squad." Mr. Martin found out that it's hard to fix a case behind closed doors when there are hundreds of people banging on those doors. In light of what Chris Casey has been uncovering about Jim Martin, coupled with my personal experience dealing with a D.A. I have found to be arrogant, "thick," and drunk with power beyond belief, I'm doing everything I can to jump-start an uprising that will result in Mr. Martin being recalled by the voters, removed from office, and disbarred. After that, I'd like to see him choke on a steak sandwich at Seward's and explode. I hope I haven't been too wishy-washy here ...
ReplyDeleteAnon 10:13, Martin is not splitting client fees w/ other lawyers who are not in his firm. He's collecting rent.
ReplyDeleteAnd please tell me, is he or is he not considered full-time? I just don't know that answer.The LC HRC certainly suggests he is not, but I just don't know.
To Sheena's Dad,
ReplyDeleteI am sorry for your loss. But that is no excuse for you to wish death on another person. That's the worst possible thing you could say. Your remark is disgusting.
Correct. He is not spliting fees. I was commenting on the prohibition of him being a partner in the law firm. I believe he would be precluded from being a partner because he cant share fees. Likewise, I believe he would be similarly precluded from partnership because he may not use his office to benefit the another person/firm, as in using his name on the letterhead, etc. That falls under the State Ethics Act
ReplyDeleteHe was part-time. However, recently the State has encouraged DA's to become full time. Many opted to do so. I think that he now draws a full time salary, (it was recently increased) but quite truthfully, I do not think he spends more time in the office then he did in the past. I also dont know whether he is officially full or part time, or just draws the salary.
In fact, there was an article in the paper on Tues. about the bill requiring full time DAs., and some challenge to it
See the Article here
As for D.A.s not being partners, your commenter explained it well. I asked a lawyer how it worked and this is how the law was interpreted by him. If I can't trust a lawyer, who can I trust?! LOL.
ReplyDeleteTruth be told Bernie, This is part of my master plan to have every elected official who is a member of the Republican party hate my guts, as much as so many Dems hate yours. Every Ying, needs a yang, they say!
To Bernie: with all due respect, here's what's disgusting:
ReplyDelete* D.A. Jim Martin taking 10 weeks to charge my daughter's killer with any crime at all-- the final 2 weeks of which we had to wait for Mr. Martin to return from a golf outing in Scotland
* D.A. Jim Martin ruling out a charge of third degree murder weeks before the police investigation was even completed
* D.A. Jim Martin never giving us any honest answers as to why he would not file a charge of third degree murder in Sheena's case, when it clearly applied; he did give us several reasons we discovered along the way were legal (sleight of hand) lies
* D.A. Jim Martin telling us that the crash speed (85+ MPH on a 35 MPH residential sreet) 'wasn't going to be a factor' ... and then seeing Judge Steinberg deem it a major factor at sentencing
* D.A. Jim Martin not putting any conditions on the defendant's (unsecured) bail which enabled the defendant to travel to Belize, Central America, for a lavish 10-day vacation in a tropical paradise while out on bail for killing my daughter Sheena. Equally disgusting is that the media never reported on this seemingly a) apparent preferential treatment or b) major local legal system failure.
* D.A. Jim Martin telling us that our daughter's unexpected early pregnancy was a 'legal non-issue that could not be used against the defendant' and then seeing Judge Steinberg use it against the defendant at sentencing and The Morning Call make it the focus of their sensationalized front page headline. Sheena's family assumes this sucker-punch was the kind of thing Mr. Martin had in mind when he screeched this at me at my 8/15/06 meeting with him after I told him I knew the crash speed: Martin said, "I'll come after you. I'll come after you in the media."
* Morning Call 'investigations editor' Tim Darragh telling me he
'cannot touch this story' because of a 'conflict of interest' he has with the newspaper's law firm ... in which the defendant's father is a partner. Rim shot. And nobody finds this troubling?
* The defendant inadvertently confessing to the requisite malice for a third degre murder charge at his guilty-plea hearing ... and D.A. Jim Martin not immediately upgrading the charges to third degree murder. In fact, he told Channel 69 News later that day that the requisite malice (which the defendant had confessed to earlier in the day) to stick a third degree murder charge in the case would be 'next to impossible to prove.' Really? With a confession from the defendant in court and under oath?
* D.A. Jim Martin still refusing to answer any of the dozens of questions Sheena's family has regarding his handling of the case
* The local media not being interested in asking the D.A. any hard questions or follow-up questions
* The defendant getting out of 'prison' after 5.5 years (or sooner) while our daughter Sheena is gone forever
* The defendant (coincidentally?) recently being assigned to one of only two minimum-security prisons in the state and the closer of the two to home, conveniently
* 'Connecting the dots' as to why PA Superior Court Judge Joan Orie Melvin (out of Pittsburgh) never returned my phone calls requesting a conversation with her about a DUI/death, third degree murder conviction she upheld in Philadelphia County in 2003 ... a case spookily similar to my daughter's case. Turns out, Judge Joanie received a campaign contribution from the Committee to Elect Jim Martin. See entry #457 here ...
http://www.campaignfinance.state.pa.us/ContributionSearchResults.aspx?RequestID=86231&SortOrder=0&StartRow=451&RowsPerPage=50
Bernie, if we wanna talk 'disgusting,' let's discuss my bullet points and while we're at it, how about cutting me some slack for my figurative comment about wanting to see Jim Martin explode. My darling daughter was killed and the D.A. sided against her. You'd be pissed-off too, even if you beat the D.A., as "The Sheena Squad" did ...
> As a matter of law, this is entirely ethical.
ReplyDeleteI think you mean, entirely legal, not "entirely ethical."
Many things that are legal are entirely unethical. In fact, ethics generally pertains to that conduct which may otherwise be legal. Just ask congress
So that you can understand how Villa family and friends must feel about Mr. Martin and killer...I'd sincerely like to put a human perspective on Sheena who died on her 25th birthday 3/23/06. Her favorite book was "Dance" by Keith Haring which I purchased for our two Granddaughter students of hers.
ReplyDeleteAlyssa and Kayleigh Kunkle. part of mcall.com Obituary Guest Book for Sheena Marie Amelia Villa was by Kayleigh (16 years old now and off to Philly for two weeks Dance competition taught by Sheena), Alyssa and others of us. If this doesn't make you cry, nothing will! Kayleigh, as she wrote it:
Miss sheena was so much more than a teacher to me. She was a friend i could count on to talk to about anything & she was my inspiration.
She was such an amazing person and dancer. She knew how to make everyone laugh and have a good time. i Was excited when i came to her classes because i just loved learning from her. So if i was having a bad day or there was something on my mind i could talk to her. I know she was so proud of me because March 22, 2006 she told me she was. I have so many good memories with her i can't even mention all of them. Its so wonderful to know that they saved peoples lives with her organs and she will be living on in them. She will also be living on in everyone she taught, because she was so friendly and everyone that met her will never forget her. Its hard to realize that she is not going to be here anymore. They say there is a reason for everything, but i just don't see the reasoning behind this. I know she is in a better place now probably teaching them all dance up there, and she is watching over all of us*** To Sheena's family, i know how hard it is to loose someone you love, i loved miss sheena too, stay strong she is watching over all of us. i love you miss sheena! Rest in peace our gardian angel! Kayleigh 15 yrs 3/28/06, Also, Miss Sheena I will love and miss you and will never forget about you. I hope that you keep watch over us. I love you a lot. alyssa 13 yrs. 3/28/06. further, My deepest sympathy to all of Sheena's family. She has touched so many in her short life -she has been an inspiration to my girls, they really looked up to her. To them, she was more than a teacher, they also considered her a friend. I know they will dance forever with Sheena in their hearts. I'll miss her and her beautiful smile - she will never be forgotten by those whose lives she has touched. My prayers are with you. Chris Kunkle
Lastly, Villa Family, Certainly, our Granddaughters, Kayleigh and Alyssa Kunkle would say the same as one of Sheena's other students did: ''Dance will never be the same without you (Sheena), but every time I dance, I will be dancing for you.'' May she rest in peace knowing the positive impact she had on so many. Larry & Bev Kisslinger. You crying yet and understand Mr. Villa a little more now?
Bill Villa!
ReplyDeleteI'd like to see him choke on a steak sandwich at Seward's and explode. I hope I haven't been too wishy-washy here ...
This is no "figurative" comment. You are wishing death on another person, and it's disgusting. I sympathize with your loss, but condemn your insensitive statement, which denigrates all of us.
This forum does not exist for you to wish death on other people. If you choose to use it for that purpose, I will delete the offending comment and report it.
Don't test me.
This is part of my master plan to have every elected official who is a member of the Republican party hate my guts, as much as so many Dems hate yours.
ReplyDeleteChris, so is this politics or good government? I'm pretty much interested in the latter. For example, council's attempt to stick Stoffa with a high bid that can't be negotiated down was a mistake by both parties. I'm an equal opportunity offendor, dude. I don't care about the party. I care about what is going on.
Anon 10:59,
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing that precludes a part-time DA from being a partner in a law firm that confines itself to civil practice. Amd so far as I know, no state law bars part-time DAs. In NC, Morganelli is full-time. But he had to get a charter change for that.
Of course, Martin should not accept payments from a lawfirm whose client he investigates. That's why I think he should have stepped aside in that matter. I agree with Casey on that point.
NLVlogic,
ReplyDeleteWhen I say that Martin was acting ethically as a matter of law, I mean that I see no violation of the Ethics Code or Code of Professional Responsibility.
I agree there is a higher standard that is beyond codification, and agree Martin should have recused himself.
Perhaps it has been reported here before but the stink in the Cullen case concerns Martin's abuse of discretion in having Cullen only plead to cases where the victim's family had not filed a suit to toll the Stature of Limitations and waiting until the two year Statute had expired before informing the families of Cullen's involvement with their loved one's death thereby protecting St. Luke's from civil damages.
ReplyDeleteThat has not been reported here and I did not see it on Casey's blog, either. If this is true, it's incredible.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Larry & Bev Kisslinger, we appreciate your support ... and I suppose word of these postings will eventually leak out to the entire "Sheena Squad" of action-oriented supporters-- although I personally have not alerted anyone, yet. For anyone who'd like information on the wonderful human being and empowering mentor/dance teacher my daughter Sheena Villa was, please visit the Expression Of Dance website and the Steps In Time website. For the best steak sandwich in town, visit Seward's. I understand D.A. Jim Martin eats there thrice weekly, on average, arriving around 1:30pm. Could be a good place to ask him a few questions as there is nowhere to hide there ...
ReplyDeleteThe Statue of Limitations issue has already been decided, here (in favor of plaintiffs) The stink about Martin is that Martin would not release any information in his file regardless of the Statute, which includes information as to cases which Cullen plead guilty and also cases of which the statute did not run. The SOL is a red herring as Martin was concerned. Martin, as DA, is not the arbitrator as far as a civil statute is concerned. That purview was left to the Judge presiding on the civil case. (Who did rule that Martin could not be compelled to release his file regardless of any civil SOL).
ReplyDeleteDamn Bernie, just once can't you take a joke!? You're the one who wrote the post that I was out to alienate all Republicans, or did that slip your mind?!
ReplyDeleteAll I want is good government, by citizens concerned with serving, not being self serving.
I couldn't get clarification on the staute of limitations controversy, so I left it off.
I thought the point was an obvious appearance that the DA was not being impartial in his handling of the case, and had a blatant conflict of interest. Now Chill Dude, or I'll come over to NC and sick Joe Long on you!
Anon 7:53,
ReplyDeleteI notice you link to opinions from the LC Court of Common Pleas. You abbreviate a statute of limitations to SOL.
You also seem intimately familiar with the Cullen case and a trial court's reluctance to grant a discovery request.
It's becoming clear to me that you represent some of the Cullen victims. I don't think it is apporpriate for an attorney to hide behind a shield of anonymity to question the integrity of Lehigh County's District Attorney. If you wish to do so, why can't you identify yourself? And also, as an attorney, you must be aware that you can file challenges with both the ethics commission or the disciplinary board or both.
I seriously question whether you are smearing the DA for the sole purpose of gaining an advantage in a civil proceeding. If that's what you're doing, then you are the one who is acting unethically.
Chris,
ReplyDeleteI respect what you wrote on yopuir blog and thinkj it was both well-researched and fair. Although I don't agree with every assertion, I agree with some of them and think you're to be commended for raising important questions.
Unfortunately, there will be those who will claim you just have a vendetta against Republicans. That's why I would not even joke about that right now.
But I appreciate your clarification that this was just an attempt at some levity.
I usually have a better sense of humor, but these are serious claims.
Bernie, you forgot this question in your list of questions LV PoliBlog is currently asking D.A. Jim Martin:
ReplyDeleteRegarding D.A. Martin's campaign contribution disbursements ...
Is there anything eyebrow-raising about a 'Committee to Elect Jim Martin' having contributed (by my count) $23,130 to a Who's Who of local, regional, and superior court judges, various other politicos, and, our PA state attorney general, Tom Corbett?
Why would the 'Committee to Elect Jim Martin' be lining the pockets of all these powerful position people?
Have a look at these 50 campaign contribution entries starting with #445 on page 9 and ending with #495 on page 10, here ...
http://www.campaignfinance.state.pa.us/ContributionSearchResults.aspx?RequestID=86231&SortOrder=0&StartRow=451&RowsPerPage=50
What's Jimbo trying to buy here?
And can he really get away with using other people's money to buy it?
Thomas Paine first published anonymously. and that was not unethical. The Constitution supports anonymous political diagloge, to a hightened degree. There is nothing that was posted anonymously politicaly that did not otherwise simply reflect the public record and merely posed a question based on the diaglouge present. Here, no one rendered any opinion on the merrits of the underlying case, only a question, which you agreed, that Martin should have recused himself. It is perfectly appropriate for diagloge which merely links to the public record, to point to the public record anonymously, especially where the person is is a public candiate. That is free speech which any blogger should support.
ReplyDeleteTo Bill Villa,
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing illegal, inappropriatte or unordinary about one campaign contributing to another. It's called politics, and Martin has every right to contribute to candidates of his choice. And he can use his own campaign warchest to do it, too. It's not other people's money. It's his. If you are using this as a basis to imply he is corrupt, then you'll have to make that charge against just about every DA.
In the case of a lawyer contributing to judge's campaign, there are two arguments. First, the lawyer is just trying to but influence. Second, the lawyer recognizes legal talent and is contributing to candidates he believes will improve the quality of the bench.
Some judicial candidates, before they start their campaign, will provide their treasurer with a letter stating they do not want to see who contributes to their campaign. Judge McFadden did that many years ago, to her credit.
Personally, I would like to see lawyers who contribute to judicial candidates banned from practicing in front of them for two or three years after the donation. That would withstand a first amendment challenge, and we'd see those donations drop considerably.
Second try at the prior link anonymous political speech
ReplyDeleteI would guess that if you looked at DA Morganelli's campaign expense reports for the same elections you would find a number of contributions to a Democratic Who's Who of Judicial candidates, state reps and state Senators, etc.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I decided to do that. Between 2003 and the present, DA Morganelli made over 30 such political contributions.
To be honest, I just think that those contributions are commonplace and aboveboard for members of both parties.
I appologize. Mr. O'Hare's comments at 9:12 PM did a far better job than I did of making the point regarding contributions.
ReplyDeleteAnon 9:11,
ReplyDeleteBelieve it or not, I was aware that Tom Paine's Common Sense was anaonymous at first. I've even read it. But you're no Tom Paine. You're not speaking out against a tyrannical King. You're a litigant trying to get money out of St. Luke's. Aren't you just trying to muddy up Jim Martin to gain some advantage in a quest for the almighty dollar?
I'm sorry, but feel your reluctance to identify yourself is unprofessional, and wish you'd think about what I'm telling you. I think you're on very dangerous ground.
Although I don't believe you've made any inaccurate representation, I do think you have made unfavorable implications. As an attorney, you are well aware you could make a complaint to the Ethics Commission of Disciplinary Board if you felt Martin were truly out of line. But you've chosen instead to make insisnuations here, anonymously, to many nonlawyers and me, a publicly disgraced lawyer.
My question is why?
Please don't give me the free speech argument. This is a blog, not a government forum. Although I like the free exchange of ideas, I don't like anonymity when it is used as a shield for an ulterior purpose. In this case, it appears to be a springboard for your lawsuit.
Thanks for hearing me out.
So in otherwords, those who attempt to gain information in support or against those who think they are agreived, are the culprit where certain information has been precluded from them. Information, because it has not been released, can not be evaluated as to whether it will help nor disprove the allegations of those who think they are agrevied, are themselves the culprit. And they can not comment on the failure to obtain such restricted information without criticism to themsevles for their endeavor! Geesh. And all I have done was to ask questions to that conflict which has already been proposed in these blogs. Who is the tyrant? You, yourself, conceeded the possible lapse in the DA's failure to recuse. . Again, the preclusion yeilds no information on the merrits of the case, if any. So the information can never be evaluated. Is it the CIA which said, the truth shall set one free. It is that which causes suspicion in light of the questionable connection, which you, yourself, conceeded, does not cause one concern. There would be no problem if no such, albeit legal, conflict did not already exist. There would be no issue had there been no appearance of conflict, which can be cured by the release of such information. Hmmm.
ReplyDeleteAnon 10:10,
ReplyDeleteThe etyomology of the phrase, "the truth shall set you free," is not the CIA. It's the Bible, dude. John 8:32.
And while we're on that phrase, that's the point I'm trying to make with you. You're being dishonest by not openly admitting that you are simply out to smear Martin so you can grab some dough.
I do have some honest questions about Martin, and Casey has even more. But neither of us is trying to enrich ourselves at Martin's expense.
Please stop playing games, and stop embarrassing your profession. You know very well what alternatives are available to a lawyer who feels another lawyer is involved in a conflict of interest. Blogging anonymously is not one of those alternatives.
You're free to do as you wish, but I will not protect your anonymity from this point should a question arise. I think you are abusing the privilege. You're still free to speak, but I won't protect your anonymity from this point. From this point, you have to take responsibility.
Respectfully, I will leave you the last word. Let that that which is already in the public record, the comments of this and Mr. Casey's blog, and that which may yet be written, answer these questions as presented. It was appropriate to ask the questions presented. Let the dialouge continue!
ReplyDeleteSo be it
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to see if D.A. Jim Martin has the balls to address any of the troubling questions raised about him today and if our local media have the work ethic (and intellectual curiosity) required to demand answers ...
ReplyDelete