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

_________________________________ ________________________________

Stephanie Tarapchak, Plaintiff Joseph Pilchesky, Next Friend Plaintiff

1371 N. Washington Ave. 819 Sunset St.

Scranton, PA 18509 Scranton, PA 18509

(570-591-4300)

98