Letter on my behalf to Pa Attorney General
13 December 2008
Tom Corbett, Attorney General of Pennsylvania
Elder Abuse Unit / Public Corruption Unit/ Charitable Trusts Section
14th Floor, Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Subject: Judicial Malfeasance in the Matter of Joyce M. Montarsi, An Incapacitated Person and Matters Concerning the Beatrice M. Wolf Trust, Clinton County, PA
To Attorney General Corbett:
I write on behalf of Jude Rene Montarsi, who is filing a complaint regarding the exploitation and victimization of his mother, Joyce M. Montarsi, involving the legal system by members of the Clinton County Judiciary. I have known Jude Montarsi roughly thirty years. As a close friend and former teacher of Jude Montarsi, I wish to state the following:
I have observed Jude Montarsi interacting with his mother on numerous occasions over several years—while we took her to several movies, took her out to eat, and talked with her when she was living with or visiting Jude, often for a meal. Given my memories from years ago when my mother had to deal with the frustrating behavior of my father who was, like Mrs. Montarsi, suffering from dementia, I was quite frankly amazed that I never once saw Jude show even the slightest sign of annoyance when dealing with his mother’s symptomatic behavior, such as her frequent repetition of the same questions, frequent bathroom calls, confused actions, etc. I do not believe that Jude’s sympathetic and selfless treatment of his mother was simply attributable to the mother-son bond, for his brother Gio Montarsi twice suddenly shifted to others the responsibility of being Mrs. Montarsi’s caregiver—premeditatively abandoning Mrs. Montarsi on Jude Montarsi’s doorstep on May 26, 2006, and again strategically dumping her into a nursing home when Jude was out of the country at a wedding in May 2007 after Jude had refused to spend any more trust funds on “home improvement projects” to enhance the resale value of Gio Montarsi’s personal real estate. Instead, I concluded that Jude was one of those perhaps rare men whose character and temperament qualified him to devote unconditional care to a beloved parent--despite the mendacious actions of his father and siblings and their attorneys, some of which appear calculated to thwart Jude being able to spend much time with his mother, both exacerbating and accelerating the diminution of Mrs. Montarsi’s quality of life and her relationships.
On or around July 3, 2006, I was present at Jude Montarsi’s residence when Darlla Conway, the supervisor of the Lycoming-Clinton Bi-County Office for Aging in Lock Haven, stopped by to discuss with Jude matters concerning his mother. At one point, I witnessed Ms. Conway phoning Jude’s brother, Gio, and speaking to him in a manner that struck me as surprisingly friendly for what I assumed was a professional call regarding Jude and his mother.
Subsequently, after Judge J. Michael Williamson had declared Mrs. Montarsi “incapacitated,” when Jude’s family members and their lawyers kept compelling Jude to appear in court on hearings over their several attempts to force him to distribute funds from and ultimately to remove him as trustee for the Beatrice M. Wolf charitable trusts for Louis & Joyce Montarsi, Jude asked me to attend those court hearings and to take notes. The purpose of my notes was to provide Jude with an accurate record of the comments and actions of Judge J. Michael Williamson, who, Jude believed, had already failed to demonstrate judicial impartiality when matters concerning the abandonment of Mrs. Montarsi in May of 2006 and again at her guardianship hearing on July 31, 2006, came before the judge.
Jude and I eventually concluded that the judge’s behavior in these matters signaled that he had become a de facto advocate for the plaintiffs and their lawyers in their attempts to compel Jude to perform actions that violated the terms of the Beatrice M. Wolf charitable trusts for Louis & Joyce Montarsi. My notes were to provide a corrective, if one were needed, to anything that the judge might have deleted from or changed in the official court record as transcribed by his reporter, Mona Shoemaker. Therefore, I attended and took notes on the following court sessions involving Jude and his parents’ trusts: November 2, 2006; October 19, 2007; December 18, 2007; January 25, 2008; and May 1, 2008. Immediately after each of these court sessions, presided over by Judge Williamson, I typed up my notes and gave Jude a signed copy.
Judge Williamson first appointed Attorney Paul J. Ryan to represent Joyce Montarsi’s interests at her guardianship hearing at the end of July 2006. After declaring Joyce Montarsi an “incapacitated person” two weeks before she became the beneficiary of a trust fund that the judge knew was being adjudicated in Florida, Judge Williamson again appointed Attorney Ryan, this time as guardian of Joyce Montarsi’s estate. Mr. Ryan appropriated Mrs. Montarsi’s meager Social Security income to pay himself for his legal fees to sue (along with then judicial-candidate Craig P. Miller) Jude Montarsi. Ultimately, after Judge Williamson removed Jude Montarsi as Trustee of his late aunt’s beneficial trusts for his parents, Judge Williamson yet again appointed Attorney Ryan, now as “Substitute-Trustee” of the Beatrice M. Wolf Trusts for both Joyce M. Montarsi and Louis Montarsi, thus creating an absolute conflict of interest as far as Attorney Ryan’s court-appointed duties were concerned, for Judge Williamson had empowered Ryan to both make requests for disbursements from the trust AND to authorize disbursements. Furthermore, one of Judge Williamson’s justifications for removing Jude as Trustee was that Jude had refused to pay the brother of the judge’s other former business partner, State Representative Michael K. Hanna, $10,000 in prepaid burial funds in direct violation of his aunt’s verbal instructions before her death and her written directive in her trust instrument.
I believe that Judge Williamson’s behavior in his court sessions dealing with Jude Montarsi, the Beatrice M. Wolf Trusts, and Jude’s attorneys (even those attorneys not present in court when the judge prejudicially smeared their professional characters)--malfeasance which is reflected in both the official court transcripts and also my notes—warrants investigation by the Judicial Conduct Board and may indeed merit a hearing before the Court of Judicial Discipline. However, here I am calling to your attention just one judicial misdeed: Judge Williamson’s attempt on January 25, 2008, to intimidate both Jude and his lawyer to drop in their appeal of the judge’s order to remove Jude as trustee any reference to attorney Paul J. Ryan as having been Judge Williamson’s “business partner.” I believe there was no official court reporter present for this hearing on January 25, 2008, when my notes read: “The judge had earlier indicated that he was, of course, going to deny [Attorney Lee] Roberts’ Motion for Post-trial Relief, and thus there would be an appeal. However, he urged Roberts to remove any claim that the judge and Attorney Ryan were ‘business partners.’ ‘I’m not going to let that go further,’ the judge huffed.” While Attorney Lee Roberts, Jude’s attorney, assured the judge that he himself had never made such an allegation in anything he’d filed with the court, I believe that Jude feels this connection between Judge Williamson and Attorney Ryan is indeed noteworthy: the two men were members of the law firm of Williamson, Coploff, Hanna, & Ryan before Williamson became a judge.
Final observations: I believe that Judge Williamson’s favoritism toward his former law partner, Paul J. Ryan, along with his naming Mr. Ryan to three positions which are in direct conflict with one another, violate Pennsylvania’s Code of Judicial Conduct. Canon 2 states that “Judges should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their activities.” And Canon 3, B, (4) states: “Judges should…exercise their power of appointment only on the base of merit, avoiding favoritism.” Thus, I believe this judge has diminished rather than promoted “public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary” (Canon 2, A) in the Clinton Country Court system.
I urge the Attorney General’s Office to act immediately on Jude Montarsi’s request and urge an investigation into his complaints to the various disciplinary authorities.
Yours truly,
Richard K. Parker
27 South Fairview Street
Lock Haven, PA 17745
570-748-4732 rparker@lhup.edu
Cc: (1) Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of Disciplinary Counsel
(2) Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Judicial Conduct Board
Tom Corbett, Attorney General of Pennsylvania
Elder Abuse Unit / Public Corruption Unit/ Charitable Trusts Section
14th Floor, Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Subject: Judicial Malfeasance in the Matter of Joyce M. Montarsi, An Incapacitated Person and Matters Concerning the Beatrice M. Wolf Trust, Clinton County, PA
To Attorney General Corbett:
I write on behalf of Jude Rene Montarsi, who is filing a complaint regarding the exploitation and victimization of his mother, Joyce M. Montarsi, involving the legal system by members of the Clinton County Judiciary. I have known Jude Montarsi roughly thirty years. As a close friend and former teacher of Jude Montarsi, I wish to state the following:
I have observed Jude Montarsi interacting with his mother on numerous occasions over several years—while we took her to several movies, took her out to eat, and talked with her when she was living with or visiting Jude, often for a meal. Given my memories from years ago when my mother had to deal with the frustrating behavior of my father who was, like Mrs. Montarsi, suffering from dementia, I was quite frankly amazed that I never once saw Jude show even the slightest sign of annoyance when dealing with his mother’s symptomatic behavior, such as her frequent repetition of the same questions, frequent bathroom calls, confused actions, etc. I do not believe that Jude’s sympathetic and selfless treatment of his mother was simply attributable to the mother-son bond, for his brother Gio Montarsi twice suddenly shifted to others the responsibility of being Mrs. Montarsi’s caregiver—premeditatively abandoning Mrs. Montarsi on Jude Montarsi’s doorstep on May 26, 2006, and again strategically dumping her into a nursing home when Jude was out of the country at a wedding in May 2007 after Jude had refused to spend any more trust funds on “home improvement projects” to enhance the resale value of Gio Montarsi’s personal real estate. Instead, I concluded that Jude was one of those perhaps rare men whose character and temperament qualified him to devote unconditional care to a beloved parent--despite the mendacious actions of his father and siblings and their attorneys, some of which appear calculated to thwart Jude being able to spend much time with his mother, both exacerbating and accelerating the diminution of Mrs. Montarsi’s quality of life and her relationships.
On or around July 3, 2006, I was present at Jude Montarsi’s residence when Darlla Conway, the supervisor of the Lycoming-Clinton Bi-County Office for Aging in Lock Haven, stopped by to discuss with Jude matters concerning his mother. At one point, I witnessed Ms. Conway phoning Jude’s brother, Gio, and speaking to him in a manner that struck me as surprisingly friendly for what I assumed was a professional call regarding Jude and his mother.
Subsequently, after Judge J. Michael Williamson had declared Mrs. Montarsi “incapacitated,” when Jude’s family members and their lawyers kept compelling Jude to appear in court on hearings over their several attempts to force him to distribute funds from and ultimately to remove him as trustee for the Beatrice M. Wolf charitable trusts for Louis & Joyce Montarsi, Jude asked me to attend those court hearings and to take notes. The purpose of my notes was to provide Jude with an accurate record of the comments and actions of Judge J. Michael Williamson, who, Jude believed, had already failed to demonstrate judicial impartiality when matters concerning the abandonment of Mrs. Montarsi in May of 2006 and again at her guardianship hearing on July 31, 2006, came before the judge.
Jude and I eventually concluded that the judge’s behavior in these matters signaled that he had become a de facto advocate for the plaintiffs and their lawyers in their attempts to compel Jude to perform actions that violated the terms of the Beatrice M. Wolf charitable trusts for Louis & Joyce Montarsi. My notes were to provide a corrective, if one were needed, to anything that the judge might have deleted from or changed in the official court record as transcribed by his reporter, Mona Shoemaker. Therefore, I attended and took notes on the following court sessions involving Jude and his parents’ trusts: November 2, 2006; October 19, 2007; December 18, 2007; January 25, 2008; and May 1, 2008. Immediately after each of these court sessions, presided over by Judge Williamson, I typed up my notes and gave Jude a signed copy.
Judge Williamson first appointed Attorney Paul J. Ryan to represent Joyce Montarsi’s interests at her guardianship hearing at the end of July 2006. After declaring Joyce Montarsi an “incapacitated person” two weeks before she became the beneficiary of a trust fund that the judge knew was being adjudicated in Florida, Judge Williamson again appointed Attorney Ryan, this time as guardian of Joyce Montarsi’s estate. Mr. Ryan appropriated Mrs. Montarsi’s meager Social Security income to pay himself for his legal fees to sue (along with then judicial-candidate Craig P. Miller) Jude Montarsi. Ultimately, after Judge Williamson removed Jude Montarsi as Trustee of his late aunt’s beneficial trusts for his parents, Judge Williamson yet again appointed Attorney Ryan, now as “Substitute-Trustee” of the Beatrice M. Wolf Trusts for both Joyce M. Montarsi and Louis Montarsi, thus creating an absolute conflict of interest as far as Attorney Ryan’s court-appointed duties were concerned, for Judge Williamson had empowered Ryan to both make requests for disbursements from the trust AND to authorize disbursements. Furthermore, one of Judge Williamson’s justifications for removing Jude as Trustee was that Jude had refused to pay the brother of the judge’s other former business partner, State Representative Michael K. Hanna, $10,000 in prepaid burial funds in direct violation of his aunt’s verbal instructions before her death and her written directive in her trust instrument.
I believe that Judge Williamson’s behavior in his court sessions dealing with Jude Montarsi, the Beatrice M. Wolf Trusts, and Jude’s attorneys (even those attorneys not present in court when the judge prejudicially smeared their professional characters)--malfeasance which is reflected in both the official court transcripts and also my notes—warrants investigation by the Judicial Conduct Board and may indeed merit a hearing before the Court of Judicial Discipline. However, here I am calling to your attention just one judicial misdeed: Judge Williamson’s attempt on January 25, 2008, to intimidate both Jude and his lawyer to drop in their appeal of the judge’s order to remove Jude as trustee any reference to attorney Paul J. Ryan as having been Judge Williamson’s “business partner.” I believe there was no official court reporter present for this hearing on January 25, 2008, when my notes read: “The judge had earlier indicated that he was, of course, going to deny [Attorney Lee] Roberts’ Motion for Post-trial Relief, and thus there would be an appeal. However, he urged Roberts to remove any claim that the judge and Attorney Ryan were ‘business partners.’ ‘I’m not going to let that go further,’ the judge huffed.” While Attorney Lee Roberts, Jude’s attorney, assured the judge that he himself had never made such an allegation in anything he’d filed with the court, I believe that Jude feels this connection between Judge Williamson and Attorney Ryan is indeed noteworthy: the two men were members of the law firm of Williamson, Coploff, Hanna, & Ryan before Williamson became a judge.
Final observations: I believe that Judge Williamson’s favoritism toward his former law partner, Paul J. Ryan, along with his naming Mr. Ryan to three positions which are in direct conflict with one another, violate Pennsylvania’s Code of Judicial Conduct. Canon 2 states that “Judges should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their activities.” And Canon 3, B, (4) states: “Judges should…exercise their power of appointment only on the base of merit, avoiding favoritism.” Thus, I believe this judge has diminished rather than promoted “public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary” (Canon 2, A) in the Clinton Country Court system.
I urge the Attorney General’s Office to act immediately on Jude Montarsi’s request and urge an investigation into his complaints to the various disciplinary authorities.
Yours truly,
Richard K. Parker
27 South Fairview Street
Lock Haven, PA 17745
570-748-4732 rparker@lhup.edu
Cc: (1) Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of Disciplinary Counsel
(2) Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Judicial Conduct Board
posted by Jude Rene Montarsi | 6:39 AM
2 Comments:
In Judges bottom statements believe me when I say he is 100percent right.Legal system in Lock Haven Pa is all working together no matter what they pretend.
I meant in Jude. Not judges
Post a Comment
<< Home