My Name Has Been Taken in Vain in Former Custody Master's Lawsuit Against NorCo Judges

For some time, I've been wondering what the hell is going on in a federal lawsuit filed by Northampton County's former custody master, Lisa Tresslar, against the judges. I've previously told you about what she calls her constructive termination by county judges and court administrator Jermaine Greene. They failed to have the case tossed because federal Judge John Gallagher does find merit in her claim that she is the victim of judicial retaliation. The matter is currently in discovery. 

I was unaware that I've actually been the focus of some of the back-and-forth between judges and Tresslar. They're convinced that she has been feeding me confidential information and even asked the court to block her from seeing any discovery they produce that is marked "Attorney's Eyes Only." 

In letters to Judge Gallagher, NorCo's bench has apparently claimed that they can prove she provided privileged information to me. I wish that were true. I'd love to know and share how some of those custody cases have been handled. In her lawsuit, Lisa complains that she had voiced concerns over new procedures in custody cases that would shield judges from hearing evidence of child abuse. Her contention is that the courts did this to insulate themselves from public rancor in the event that a child was abused after a custody order is entered. It was after she voiced her concerns that the courts basically stripped her of most of her duties, reducing her to a glorified clerk instead of a Harvard-educated attorney. 

I know this mostly from what I've seen on Pacer, a website open to the public for viewing federal cases I also know a little based on what some attorneys have told me. But like Tresslar, they've been unwilling to share privileged information. I understand why. They are ethical, and it's highly insulting to suggest anything different. Not to me, but to Northampton County lawyers. I would think the judges would know better. 

After first saying that they could prove that Tresslar had a hotline to me, they now say they "have no way to verify any of [Tresslar’s] allegations on this topic, especially since she does not appear to have produced all communications with this blogger to date, despite Defendants request." In effect, they now accuse her of hiding her communications with me. 

Judges, allow me to share what I know. At no time has Lisa Tresslar ever shared any privileged information with me. She has even refused to provide case names or details that might help me to substantiate or debunk her lawsuit. Believe me, I've tried. I am, after all, a bottom-feeder. 

I've tried to get your side, too. I reached out to Jermaine Greene after the suit was filed, and he told me pretty much the same thing Lisa told me. 

Neither side wants their case tried on this blog. Thus, I can only report what I see on the record. 

Before she filed her federal lawsuit, Tresslar made clear to me that she was actually cutting me off precisely because she had no desire to try her case on the blog. If we see each other in the hallway, we say Hi. I always ask her how on earth a Harvard Law graduate could ever support Donald Trump, and I have often told her that she belongs on the bench herself. I have immense respect for her as a lawyer and as a person. I've felt that way for some time because she, along with then President Judge Steve Baratta, completely changed custody hearings to make them better for the children who are very much impacted by them. 

I do know she named one of her cats after me. I have no idea why because I am more of a parakeet person myself. 

Jermaine Greene has named no cats after me. 

Maybe a rat. 

After considering the competing concerns, Judge Gallagher has spurned the attempt by NorCo's judges to prevent Tresslar from actually seeing the discovery they produce. 

"Upon consideration of the parties’ letters to the Court regarding their dispute as to what confidentiality order to enter in this case and whether certain documents should be designated as “Attorney’s Eyes Only,” the Court will enter the Confidentiality Order proposed by Plaintiff. See ECF No. 59. The Court finds that Plaintiff will be prejudiced in the prosecution of her claims without access to the discovery materials. Moreover, Defendants, at this point, have not made any formal claims of privilege. The potential for prejudice to Plaintiff outweighs Defendants’ speculative concerns regarding breaches of this Order.

"However, the Court cautions that this Confidentiality Order is to be strictly adhered to. Any transgression of this Order may result in sanctions or even referrals to the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania."