“You cannot solve problems with the same level of consciousness that created them” Albert Einstein

TO THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD

OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania Judicial Center
601 Commonwealth Ave, Suite 3500
P.O. Box 62525
Harrisburg, Pa 17120-0901

In Complaint Against: JUDGE DEFENDANT1 AND JUDGE DEFENDANT2

Montgomery County CASE

July 8, 2013

Statement to Review Committee

This is a resubmission of two judicial complaints, by invitation of the Judicial Conduct Board, at the meeting of June 7, 2013 with Plaintiff Diane Gochin. It is requested that it be given priority, because this case has been allowed to unjustifiably fester into its seventh year. Plaintiff is further requesting that a written opinion be provided to her, by each Board member, justifying their decisions, and to validate that it will receive a full review by qualified individuals. Specific issues need to be addressed such as judicial orders being inconsistent with the record, statutes not being applied when mandated and failure to control a miscreant attorney who obviously and continually violated the rules of conduct.

While the Defendants in the complaint have been kept confidential, there is currently a network of over 100 litigants across the state of Pennsylvania, who are watching for the outcome, in hopes that their own cases may finally be reviewed. Many of them have lost their homes, their savings and even their children, because the judiciary has decayed into a self-serving oligarchy. This complaint has been painstakingly written in detail, with the goal of enlightening the Board to the subtle, but destructive patterns of behavior, being used by judges and attorneys to defraud assets from litigants.

Unfortunately, to review this case will not be an easy task, as it has become absurdly complex; however, that makes it an excellent example to emphasize to the Board, the amount of damage that can be caused by their failure to act expediently and responsibly. In fact, what was a simple divorce with few assets, has turned needlessly into four lawsuits over its seven years. To be able to write a qualified opinion, it is crucial to read three of these collateral cases, that have been provided on a disk. Appendices 2, 3 and 7 - i.e. federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court, the Petition for Joinder of Parties (now being submitted in Philadelphia as a complaint), and the active civil complaint against the opposing attorney, respectively, are needed to understand the gravamen of this case. It would also be beneficial to read through the transcripts provided, as they are evidence of pro se mistreatment and the charades played out by attorneys and judges.

The original complaints were submitted on or about January 2010 against Judge Defendant1, and September 2011 against Judge Defendant2. The two complaints have been combined to emphasize that this conduct is not an aberration, but part of an entrenched routinely used methods of extortion and racketeering, that in any other venue would be considered organized crime. It is pervasive throughout the court system due to the complete lack of oversight and the archaic concept of immunity. Furthermore, it is important to note that all of the orders by Judge Defendant2 were interlocutory- blocking the right of appeal in violation of due process. At the time, this Plaintiff was unaware of this, and appeals show on the docket as quashed - not because there were no abuses of discretion or errors, but because of a larger, systemic problem that has allowed procedural rules to block access to substantive law, due to the absence of legislative approval. Had there been access to the appellate court, as is a constitutional right, these complaints may never have needed to be submitted.

The Judicial Conduct Board must change their attitude from the previous disastrous administration, and recognize that the system has fallen prey to the avarice of attorneys who have clearly failed at being self-regulatory. The Board alone has the power and responsibility to ensure that judges follow the same laws as every other citizen in this country.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Content	Page
Request for Investigation Forms	i, ii
Statement to Review Committee	3-4
Facts in Support of Allegations	5-10
List of Appendices Submitted Disk	11
Part 1 Summary of Case	12-13
Part II - Judge Defendant1	13-15
Part III – Judge Defendant2	15-24
List of Statutes and Rules Violated	25
Conformity of Complaint to JCB Standards	26-28
Powers Invested in the JCB	29
Signed Request for Thorough Investigation	30

FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

· FACT: At the commencement of this case in June 2007, the record clearly showed that the marital estate had ample funds to satisfy outstanding bills to preserve the family credit, and protect the standard of living of the children. Solely through efforts of Plaintiff, a vacation property was sold for a sizeable profit ( Appendix 1A), and an escrow account was established with the agreement between the attorneys that these bills would immediately be paid; however, these judges failed to order bills to be paid when attorney Feldman reneged on that agreement, in compliance with Title 23 Chapter 31 - Preliminary Provisions § 3102. Legislative findings and intent.

(a) Policy.--The family is the basic unit in society and the protection and preservation of the family is of paramount public concern. Therefore, it is the policy of the Commonwealth to………

1) Make the law for legal dissolution of marriage effective for dealing with the realities of matrimonial experience.

(2) Encourage and effect reconciliation and settlement of differences between spouses, especially where children are involved.

(3) Give primary consideration to the welfare of the family rather than the vindication of private rights or the punishment of matrimonial wrongs.

(4) Mitigate the harm to the spouses and their children caused by the legal dissolution of the marriage.

(5) Seek causes rather than symptoms of family disintegration and cooperate with and utilize the resources available to deal with family problems.

(6) Effectuate economic justice between parties who are divorced or separated and grant or withhold alimony according to the actual need and ability to pay of the parties and insure a fair and just determination and settlement of their property rights.

(b) Construction of part.--The objectives set forth in subsection (a) shall be considered in construing provisions of this part and shall be regarded as expressing the legislative intent.

· FACT: Judge Defendant2 knowingly falsified the record with her third Support order of March 26, 2013 included in a footnote stating that:

"Since 2010 mother has consistently alleged that father submitted fraudulent W-2s and pay statements, that father has a much higher earning capacity and that father "pilfered" the business and that father fraudulently transferred the business to third parties….in the Order dated December 3, 2010, this court did not find that mother fulfilled her burden of proof, however, mother has a pending civil suit [against the opposing attorney] surrounding this issue and therefore this court has declined to make any further determinations as to the validity of the mother allegations… Since the order of December 3, 2010, and its subsequent order, this court has consistently included terms preserving mother's claims are preserved for equitable distribution and/or to retroactively file for a recalculation of support" (Appendix 14, P. 2, Footnote)

In fact, the civil suit is against the opposing attorney, and was not filed until September 2011, so it could not have affected any of the Plaintiff's requests for reconsideration, injunctions, a mortgage modification, embezzelment of funds and the production of other income of Husband, on Judge Defendant2's two previous support orders in December 2010 and August 2011. The Court record already contained the financial evidence in the Appendices attached on disk herein for a period of three years, before Judge Defendant2's retroactive December 3, 2010 support order (except for the actual PA Corporate website information on the business transference discovered in July 2011). It doesn't take much intelligence to see that the statutes that she violated were passed by the legislature as to address issues that could not fundamentally or logically be preserved without causing egregious economic damage Among the statutes in violation are as follows:

Title 23 Divorce

§ 3102, Legislative Intent

§ 3505. Disposition of property to defeat obligations.

(a) Preliminary relief

§ 4302. Definitions ‘‘income’’ is defined by the support law

§ 4305.(a) Powers and duties

(11) Initiate judicial proceedings to void a fraudulent transfer

Chapter 46 - Support of the Indigent

§ 4603. Relatives' liability; procedure.

Rule 1910.16-2. Support Guidelines. Calculation of Net Income.

Voluntary Reduction of Income.

It is obvious that Judge Defendant2 was intentionally complicit, (as it was found later that she concealed a campaign contribution from the opposing attorney) with the fraud being perpetrated by the husband and his attorney to dissipate the entire marital estate, Had she not violated multiple statutes back in 2010, as proven throughout this complaint, the husband's support would have been calculated much higher, Plaintiffs credit would not have been ruined and the home would not be in foreclosure.

· FACT: Both Judges Defendant1 and Defendant2 knew that there were urgent economic issues to be addressed and that by granting the opposing party frivolous continuances, failing to enforce discovery noncompliance, and facilitating malicious obstruction of an innocuous mortgage modification, that they would cause harm to

the standard of living for the children and dissipate the assets in violation of Title 23 Chapter 31 - Preliminary Provisions § 3102. Legislative findings and intent.

· FACT: The mortgage modification is still being blocked for six years, even though Plaintiff filed three petitions to have it signed by the Husband, which would have caused no economic harm to the Husband, and only benefited the preservation of the assets until equitable distribution. Plaintiff can produce multiple other cases where this was immediately ordered by the court. However, in violation of Rule 703. Reports of judges. A) Policy Statement. Failure to Address Motions and Petitions in the Required Time. and Title 231 Rule 1931. Family Court Rules.(3) Prompt Decisions. and Title 23 § 3102 (see above) these petitions are still unaddressed in this case. There can be no other explanation than that of collusion to appease the opposing attorney, and the home is now needlessly in unrecoverable default. (Appendix 1B,C,D)

· FACT: While Judges Defendant1 and Defendant2 presided over this divorce case, a preponderance of evidence (Appendices 2,3 & 4) was submitted into the record clearly proving that the marital assets were visibly dissipated and fraudulently transferred after the commencement of, and continually during the divorce proceedings, and these judges violated Title 23 Chapter 35 Property Rights :

§ 3505 Disposition of property to defeat obligations.

(a) Preliminary Relief

Where it appears to the court that

a party is about to leave the jurisdiction of the court or is

about to remove property of that party from the jurisdiction of

the court or is about to dispose of, alienate or encumber

property in order to defeat equitable distribution, alimony

pendente lite, alimony, child and spousal support or a similar

award, an injunction may issue to prevent the removal or

disposition and the property may be attached as prescribed by

general rules. The court may also issue a writ of ne exeat to

preclude the removal…..

(e) Encumbrance or disposition to third parties.--An

encumbrance or disposition of marital property to third persons

who paid wholly inadequate consideration for the property may be

deemed fraudulent and declared void.

AND

§ 4305.(a) Powers and duties

(11) Initiate judicial proceedings to void a fraudulent transfer that mandated immediate court action; therefore, the damage in this case was caused by the misconduct of these judges who failed to act in accordance with the law.

· FACT: Plaintiff's 2011 Motion for Mortgage Modification( Appendix 1B), Motion for Bifurcation and a Motion for Injunctive Relief for Illegally Transferred Marital Assets -(Appendix 5) are still pending because Judge Defendant2 pretentiously and continually delayed them in violation of Rule 703. Reports of judges. A) Policy Statement. Failure to Address Motions and Petitions in the Required Time. by facilitating a filibuster by the opposing attorney, during a hearing that was scheduled for a full day especially to address these issues. There is over 50 pages of her discussing one needlessly long overdue discovery item for two hours.(Appendix 16)

· FACT: On October 19, 2012 Judge Defendant2 announced on the record, during a hearing on a petition to disqualify opposing attorney Randee Feldman,that she will not proceed on this seven-year-old divorce case because the Plaintiff has an active lawsuit against attorney Feldman, since 2011, abuse of process and tortuous interferences (Appendix 7) . She also has refused to issue a formal “stay” order for appeal, regarding that statement. Plaintiff contends that this is an obvious act of retaliation and violation of due process, especially when taken in conjunction with her other abusive and biased actions illustrated herein.(Appendix 6, pages 11-17).

· FACT: A trial court is guilty of abusing its discretion if its Orders are based on conclusions which are not supported by the record, and that had the outrageous December 2010 "Finding of Facts" and Support Order of Judge Defendant2 (Appendix 9), been properly reviewed by the Judicial Conduct Board on the initial complaint in 2011, it would have been obvious that it was not consistent with the either the transcripts or evidence presented (Appendix 10), and was in violation of Title 231 §1910.162. Support Guidelines. Calculation of Net Income. Voluntary Reduction of Income.

(d) Reduced or Fluctuating Income.

(1) Voluntary Reduction of Income. When either party voluntarily assumes a lower paying job, quits a job, leaves employment, changes occupations or changes employment status to pursue an education, or is fired for cause, there generally will be no effect on the support obligation.

· FACT: The Plaintiff asked Judge Defendant2 for disclosure of any outside contact she has had with the opposing attorney Randee Feldman, and instead suspiciously chose to conceal a campaign contribution and social relationship. Plaintiff discovered the contribution on an online government website, and motioned twice for her recusal, for behaviors which were obviously not appropriate for an impartial tribunal, which predictably Defendant2 dismissed it as interlocutory, and also denied a Petition for Permission to Appeal.

· FACT: There is no legal, moral or ethical justification as to why this divorce case is still ongoing after six years, with all of the Plaintiff's motions and petitions unaddressed; in fact, Judge. Defendant2 was divorced from another Montgomery County Bar member in a time period of only six months.

APPENDICES SUBMITTED ON DISK

Appendix 1	(A) Pocono Settlement (B to D) 2008 to 2011 Three Petitions for Mortgage Modification
Appendix 2	2008 U.S District Court Case,Plaintiff Travelers Express #2:08-cv-05898.
Appendix 3	2011 Plaintiff 's Petition for Joinder of Parties
Appendix4	2010 Pennsylvania Lottery, Septa, K-1 in 2008, 2009 Corporate Tax return
Appendix 5	2011 Motions for Bifurcation and Motion for Injunctive Relief
Appendix 6	Transcript - October 2012 - Staying the Divorce
Appendix 7	Diane Gochin v. Randee Feldman #2011-25251 and Order
Appendix 8	Mortgage Payments and Business Income History
Appendix 9	December 2010 "Finding of Facts" and Support Order of Judge Defendant2
Appendix 10	Transcript - October 14, 15 2010 "Finding of Facts
Appendix 11	2012 Pending Order for Equitable Distribution
Appendix 12	Demand for Jury Trial
Appendix 13	Defendant1 Transcript - October 12, 2009
Appendix 14	March 26, 2013 Defendant2 Order claimed no evidence of transferred of assets
Appendix 15	Support order of Master Mindy Harris - August 2011
Appendix 16	2011 Transcript of Filibuster by Randee Feldman facilitated by Judge Defendant2

SUMMARY OF CASE

Part 1 - Overview

1) The gravamen of this case arises from the repetitive patterns of suspect conduct in the Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, which has unjustifiably perpetuated the divorce of Plaintiff Diane Gochin, into its seventh year. The underlying matter, Case #, was a relatively simple divorce with very few assets, that has been intentionally expanded through what is tantamount to criminal racketeering.

2) The damage in this unjustifiably protracted case, has been facilitated and inflicted by the unlawful conduct of Judges Defendant1 and Defendant2, in complicity with the conspiracy of the Husband, and his attorney, Randee Feldman Esq., to deprive the Plaintiff of her share of the marital estate. Plaintiff has filed multiple petitions to move forward to equitable distribution, and after six years, Judge Defendant2 issued an order for scheduling with no allowance for continuances; this was over a year ago and she has refused to enforce her own order. (Appendix 11 )

3) Plaintiff is representing herself, in part, because she could not find an attorney to work with attorney Feldman, who has a reputation of unethical and immoral conduct. In fact, emails included in Appendix 7 from two attorneys who complained about attorney Feldman. Husband and attorney Feldman, have been engaged in a deliberate plan to bleed the marital estate by defrauding the banks and other creditors (resulting in a collateral case in the U.S. Eastern District Court (Appendix 2 ), and by keeping the divorce proceedings open in order to benefit Husband, and his business partners. Judges Defendant1 and Defendant2 had to have recognized, and were therefore complicit in, this plan, as the estate was visibly depleted during the intentionally prolonged court proceedings.

4) When Plaintiff filed the divorce action in 2007 after a 20-year marriage, the marital estate was worth approximately $500,000, which included two properties owned and being paid by the parties, a business, and other miscellaneous assets. The marital estate now has debt and a negative worth; one property was sold, and the escrow fund has been depleted, the marital home is in foreclosure and two of the children graduated from high school and have been unable to attend college.

Part II - Judge Defendant1's Misconduct - June 2007-December 2009

5) Judge Defendant1 had presided over this divorce from approximately June 9, 2007 to December 31, 2009. The protraction of this litigation, and years-long delay of the equitable distribution of the small and simple marital estate, was initially perpetuated by his misconduct. Plaintiff alleges principally that Defendant1 facilitated the dissipation of the marital assets by not only allowing a multitude of frivolous continuances and delays, but he was complicit with what was obvious fraud committed by the opposing attorney that worked to the substantial pecuniary detriment of the Plaintiff. The only order ever written by Defendant1 was to release attorney’s fees (Appendices 7 & 12)

6) Judge Defendant1 ignored requests to preserve the standard of living for the children involved in the divorce, via a mortgage modification - and instead, he assisted a vindictive husband and his attorney-- in obstructing the modification for two years, dissipating the equity in the asset. Further, Plaintiff’s excellent credit rating has been ruined, due to the failure of this court to order release of the escrow to pay undisputable marital debts and preserve the couples credit. Instead, as it was taken predominantly by attorneys through excessive fees, with the complicity of the Court.. This has now prevented Plaintiff's children from obtaining student loans and they cannot go to college, even though they have graduated from high school.(Appendix 1)

7) Judge Defendant1 held an ex parte telephone conference with the senior partner of the law firm of Plaintiff’s former attorney- regarding legal fees. Furthermore, the owner of the law firm High Swartz, LLC, Paul Bartle, boasted to Plaintiff that he went to law school with Judge Defendant1 and would get the fees released from escrow. Indeed he did, while Plaintiff’s outstanding marital debts have gone unpaid for seven years, causing her and her children grievous loss and harm.

8) Judge Defendant1 then chastised Plaintiff for negotiating down the legal bill, accusing Plaintiff for the withdraw of counsel Missy Boyd of High Swartz, while it was his failure to expediently address issues in the divorce case, to enrich fellow attorneys, that ran up the legal bills. This is blatantly evident on the record, where he rants how "I want the attorneys to be paid" and he wants them to "have some hope of getting paid." He further stated on the record, that Plaintiff needed to hire another lawyer, and that any equity left in her home should now be used for that purpose, in a display of contempt for pro se litigants. This disgraceful pursuit to completely drain the marital state is typical of the racketeering used by attorneys, and has no place in the business of the courts. No attempt to settle the marital estate was ever made by Judge Defendant1. (Appendix 13)

9) Judge Defendant1 showed obvious partiality when he refused to impose sanctions against the opposing attorney Feldman, when she was not only caught lying in court, but altered routing numbers on self-printed escrow checks to bounce on Plaintiff’s attorney and CPA, after Defendant1 ordered Feldman to release the funds. She committed this check fraud to increase the already nine month delay she created until Defendant1 awarded $13,000 for Feldman, which he authorized the bank to release without the required signature of Plaintiff. (Appendix 7)

10) Pennsylvania statute Title 23 § 3102. Legislative findings and intent. requires that the courts protect Plaintiff and children against economic harm. Instead, Judge Defendant1 facilitated it-no progress was ever made during the time Defendant1 presided over the case. In December 2009, Plaintiff petitioned for Defendant1 to disqualify himself; however, as there is no oversight, no checks and balance and no recourse for victims of such corruption as is rampant in this court system the result was predictable; Defendant1 refused to recuse. Plaintiff submitted a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Board, but it was dismissed with no explanation given. And Plaintiff has since learned that a very similar complaint was active against Defendant1 for the same pattern of misconduct and obstruction of justice during the time of her action.

Part III - Judge Defendant2 - January 2010 to present ( 3 years and 7 months)

11) Judge Defendant2 was assigned the divorce in January 2010; she continues to unethically preside over the proceedings, despite two compelling petitions filed for her recusal, another consequence of the absurd system allowing judges to decide over their own integrity. The result was predictable, as she continually refused to recuse, and retaliated in multiple contemptible actions, further dissipating the marital assets of Plaintiff. Judge Defendant2 did everything imaginable to throw the case for her campaign contributor and fellow member of the bar.

12) When Plaintiff realized this proceeding was tainted she petition for a jury trial, but Judge Defendant2 denied it. (Appendix 12). Defendant2 has since delayed the divorce proceedings for an outside civil case not within her jurisdiction, precluded Plaintiff from paying her mortgage, accepted indisputably falsified documents from the opposing party, failed to penalize a rogue attorney, violated the Domestic Relations Statutes, and is guilty of overall transgression of the canons of judicial conduct as is clearly illustrated herein.

13) Judge Defendant2 openly threatened during the hearing that she would retaliate against the Plaintiff, by denying support because “it drives her crazy when people don’t save the money” if they are not paying the mortgage. This was at the first hearing in August 2010, before she knew anything about the case and she wrote a very prejudiced support order reflecting her incompetency. In fact, this statement was absurd on multiple levels, as Plaintiff had never been given a support hearing in three years and was not receiving the appropriate support during that time to be able to pay any mortgage. Plaintiff was also paying on two mortgages (one a vacation property and the other a forbearance as a prerequisite for a mortgage modification which does not get applied to the mortgage principal).(Appendix 8), Judge Defendant2 accordingly gave an outrageous two year retroactive, unsubstantiated $6000 child support credit to the Husband. (Appendix 9). This “order” reduced child support for two children from $1200 a month to approximately $400 a month.

14) Judge Defendant2 failed to apply the correct support rules, or to illustrate how she arrived at her calculations of the final Support Order in this case. Judge Defendant2 used inaccurate variables to calculate the support order with respect to the Husbands income and percentage of shared custody, and the number of eligible dependents, especially with regard to the care of the couple’s mentally-handicapped adult son under Title 23 Chapter 46 - Support of the Indigent and § 4321. Liability for support. Subject to the provisions of this chapter:

(3) Parents may be liable for the support of their children who are 18 years of age or older.

15) Judge Defendant2 issued a "Finding of Facts" that were completely nowhere to be found in the record. She made discriminatory remarks regarding Plaintiff’s decision to stay home and raise her own children. In her “Finding of Facts” (Appendix 9 & 10 ) she completely perverted the record to make her support order: at N.T. #36 that “ the parties were financially strapped as the custom of their pulling money from the business “caught up” to them as evidenced by Wife’s return to the job market.” In fact, Plaintiff obtained her Master’s degree in 1994, while pregnant with her third child, in preparation to return to the job market when the youngest child could come home alone. Plaintiff further obtained her Paralegal Certification in 2004 (while she was raising her children), to assist in issues that often arise with the check cashing industry, and she returned full time to the workforce in 2005 when the youngest turned 11- not that this type of statement even belongs in the business of the courts and is highly discriminatory.

16) Judge Defendant2 further displayed bias, and hypocrisy in her “Findings of Fact.” There were 11 quotations taken from the testimony of the Husband used to support her “findings”, as opposed to the grand total of only 3 citations of the Plaintiff’s testimony– and in fact, Judge Defendant2 misquotes, incorrectly paraphrases and otherwise distorts the Plaintiff’s testimony as recorded in the transcript. Judge Defendant2 based her opinions on the biased testimony of a paid witness for the Husband, whom she admitted she has known for seventeen years, (and refused to disqualify from the case upon Petition by Plaintiff), and materially unsupported testimony of the Husband..(Appendix 9 to be compared with the record in Appendix 10)

17) In #14 and 15 of the Judge’s “Finding of Facts” Judge Defendant2’s summary that “both parties testified that over the years they cashed out their retirements accounts, refinanced both their marital residence and vacation house to finance the business, do home improvements and pay off bills” is not contained anywhere in the Plaintiff’s testimony.(Appendix 9 & 10) The fact is that the refinancing of the home was to build the Husband’s mother an in-law suite and an addition. It is interesting to note that Judge Defendant2 refinanced her own home as many times as did the Plaintiff and in a shorter period of time.

18) With complete disregard for the law, Judge Defendant2 validated Husband’s fraud by using a W-2 from a “straw” company claiming $30,000 a year -salary reduction by more than 70%, as the basis for child support , even though the Husband admitted he was still working in his store. Judge Defendant2 supported an order by Master Mindy Harris who claimed "Plaintiff didn't need the money because she was living for "free"" and further reduced the child support leaving approximately $200 a month because of the $6000 previous credit. Instead of assigning an earning capacity as statute dictates(Appendix 15) The applicable NON DISCRETIONARY rule that she had a duty to follow was as follows:

Title 231 - Rule 1910.16-2. Support Guidelines. Calculation of Net Income. Voluntary Reduction of Income.

When either party voluntarily assumes a lower paying job, quits a job, leaves employment, changes occupations or changes employment status to pursue an education, or is fired for cause, there generally will be no effect on the support obligation.

19) The fact was that Plaintiff finished paying on the forbearance and the mortgage company would not accept payments until a mortgage modification was signed. The insanity of these two comrades of attorney Feldman, as they pretended that the equity in the home was not being depleted by their criminal actions at obstructing a mortgage modification to be blocked for years, can only be summed up with language not appropriate for this document.

20) Judge Defendant2 was presented with a preponderance of evidence that marital assets had been fraudulently transferred, embezzled from business trust accounts and stolen during the divorce proceedings over her four years presiding. Plaintiff even presented Judge Defendant2 with a printout from the Pennsylvania Corporations website upon information revealed during Husband’s testimony, showing that Husband and his attorney had concealed that the business had been transferred a year before. (Appendices 2, 3 and 4) in violation of the following NONDISCRETIONARY statute:

Title 23 § 4305. General administration of support matters.

Powers and duties.--Subject to any inconsistent general rules and to the supervision and direction of the court, the domestic relations section shall have the power and duty to:

(11) Initiate judicial proceedings to void a fraudulent transfer or obtain a settlement from the transferee in the best interests of the child support obligee

21) Plaintiff’s has been paying the health insurance of the husband and three children and has never been given credit towards support for this, nor would Judge Defendant2 adjust for the doubling of this deduction from her pay for this coverage, substantially lowering her income by $460 a month, in compliance with Title 23 1910.16-2. Support Guidelines. Calculation of Net Income. Involuntary Reduction of, and Fluctuations in Income:

No adjustments in support payments will be made for normal fluctuations in earnings. However, appropriate adjustments will be made for substantial continuing involuntary decreases in income, including but not limited to the result of illness, lay-off, termination, job elimination or some other employment situation over which the party has no control unless the trier of fact finds that such a reduction in income was willfully undertaken in an attempt to avoid or reduce the support obligation

22) Further submitted as evidence of perjury and conspiracy, are the statements that Husband provided from Richmond Check Cashing, belonging to a friend who he was using to cash checks through instead of a bank, showing that in just the first quarter, the store had not only had a check profit of $28,886, but he had monthly commissions from Ameracash Bill paying averaging $1000 a month, plus commissions from the Pennsylvania Lottery and Septa of at least that much- all presented to Judge Defendant2, yet she failed to act as justice required by including this to calculate the support order.

23) The eleven elements of fraud on the part of the Husband were all blatantly obvious from the paper trail presented into evidence by Plaintiff over four years ago. Yet on the March 18, 2013 Court order, Judge Defendant2 falsely wrote in a footnote that Plaintiff had provided no evidence. (Appendix 14). It was impossible not conclude that the business had been pilfered and then fraudulently transferred during the years of litigation in divorce. It is obvious that Judge Defendant2’s actions were the product of favoritism for the opposing attorney, who collectively contributed with the bar association to put Defendant2 on the bench, to whom she obviously felt obligated.

24) Judge Defendant2 dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition to join additional defendants (Appendix 3 ) who conspired with the Husband in the illegal transfer of the business marital asset. Judge Defendant2 refused to apply these facts to the case, and comply with the above cited statutes Title 23 § 4305 a) 11-Initiate Proceedings to Void a Fraudulent Transfer, 1920.34 Joinder of Parties, and Rule 1910.16-2 (1) Voluntary Reduction of Income, and Chapter 1920. Actions Of Divorce Or For Annulment Of Marriage §1920.34. Joinder of Parties.

25) Further, Judge Defendant2 was presented with evidence not only with a complaint from the U.S. Eastern District Court filed by Travelers Express International aka Money gram- due to the Husband removing approximately $100,000 from a money order trust account; Plaintiff also presented notices of loss from 2008 to 2010 from the Pennsylvania Lottery, Septa, Corporate returns showing $158,000 taken out of the business as a “loan to shareholder,” and two K-1s showing profit owed to Plaintiff in the amount of about $30,000 (Appendix 2,3 4)

26) Judge Defendant2’s first duty was to do what is in the best interests of the children according to the Title 23 § 3102. Legislative findings and intent. She has done

exactly the opposite to protect her reputation and repay her debt to the bar. The below rules required her to support her order that deviated from the guidelines, providing a valid written explanation that was consistent with the record as to why she gave the Husband an undue $6000 retroactive support credit:

Title 231 - Rule 1910.16-5. Support Guidelines. Deviation.

Deviation. If the amount of support deviates from the amount of support determined by the guidelines, the trier of fact shall specify, in writing or on the record, the guideline amount of support, and the reasons for, and findings of fact justifying, the amount of the deviation.

Factors. In deciding whether to deviate from the amount of support determined by the guidelines, the trier of fact shall consider: unusual needs and unusual fixed obligations; standard of living of the parties and their children; other relevant and appropriate factors, including the best interests of the child or children.

27) Plaintiff had all three of her children living with her at the time of separation, including a disabled child. They had two mortgages, which Plaintiff was paying on both until Judge Defendant2 lowered the support from $1500 a month to $200 a month for three children, including eliminating the alimony pendent lite, even though Plaintiff suffered a reduced income because she stayed home for 17 years raising her children, and had provided the court with a preponderance of evidence that the Husband had pilfered three business trust accounts, creating legal actions against the Plaintiff, since the commencement of the divorce.

28) Plaintiff has worked at Thomas Jefferson University as a Grants and Contracts Administrator since February 2008, and has had multiple reductions in income. Her income was substantially reduced by increasing benefits contributions. Plaintiff was paying $160 a month for healthcare for the entire family, including the Defendant- she now pays $460, and her hourly rate has only increased about $1 in the five years she has worked there. Therefore the following NONDISCRETIONARY support rule should have been applied, but Judge Defendant2 has refused to recognize the involuntary reduction of Plaintiff's income:

Title 231 - Rule 1910.16-2. Support Guidelines. Calculation of Net Income. Involuntary Reduction of, and Fluctuations in, Income.

29) The Rules further provide in Subdivision (c) sets forth all of the cost of health insurance premiums may be deducted from the obligor’s gross income pursuant to Rule 1910.16-6(b) in cases in which the obligor is paying the premiums and the obligee has no income or minimal income. The health insurance premium is a large percent of Plaintiff’s income and must be deducted from her gross. But everything that was at the “discretion” of the judge was denied the Plaintiff and granted to attorney Feldman’s client.

30) Rule 1910.16-5 may also consider a party’s contribution to additional expenses, which are typically added to the basic amount of support under Rule 1910.16-6. However, Plaintiff has never been afforded this deviation by this Court, even though she provided payments to her disabled son, and has her adult daughter living with for whom she cover on her health insurance, food and utilities, and has paid the car insurance for both children for the first two years they were driving. Husband has contributed nothing, but lies and theft, been getting free dental and health insurance, and precluded the children from attending college by ruining the family credit intentionally. All facilitated by Judge Defendant2.

31) On November 3, 2011, after Plaintiff waited two years to have the mortgage modification address, and five months for a hearing on injunctive relief for the transference of the business, bifurcation to remove husband from the insurance and discovery items that were overdue for nearly a year, Judge Defendant2 allowed Miss Feldman to “filibuster” for well over two hours on one discovery item as is evidenced in the transcript (Appendix 16). Defendant2 allowed repeated reading of the same six lines of text from a discovery request that was a year in noncompliance-which did not even need a hearing to be resolved.

32) Mr. Gordon Mair, the Equitable Distribution Master witnessed this, and was rolling his eyes (when they were open) at Judge Defendant2’s and Miss Feldman’s outrageous behavior. There were several very urgent petitions that were the true focus for the hearing, -instead Plaintiff had wasted another vacation day to attend. The mortgage modification -to save the home where the children lived, and an injunction to stop the profit from fraudulent conveyance of the business from being stolen, went unheard. Judge Defendant2 tried to reschedule but Plaintiff sent her a fax telling her she would not be attending any more charades scheduled by her (Appendices 7 & 16).

33) Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a petition to disqualify Randee Feldman in October 2012, whereby Judge Defendant2 took the opportunity as and stated on the record (Appendix 6) that she is “staying” the divorce because of the 2011 civil suit against the opposing attorney for issuing fake checks on the escrow account, abuse of process and tortuous interferences. The civil case against Feldman had been ongoing already for a year, but Defendant2 suddenly decided there may be a conflict of interest. So after assisting the opposing attorney in expanding the case for four years- (who admitted that her client is in no hurry to get divorced because he is getting free health insurance)- Judge Defendant2 has put an unofficial stay on the proceedings.

34) Defendant2 has left the motion for disqualification pending and said on the record that she will not hear the divorce until the civil suit is over and that Plaintiff “better hurry up” in that case. Plaintiff then offered to withdraw the Motion to Disqualify and allow counsel to represent Husband in the divorce, but Judge Defendant2 refused in an obvious act of retaliation, and continues to illicitly impede the divorce process (Appendix 6)

35) This retroactive support adjustment by Judge Defendant2, eliminated approximately 80 percent of Plaintiff’s child support. About this time, Plaintiff observed suspicious interactions between the opposing counsel and Judge Defendant2, and asked them to disclose any relations between them. Judge Defendant2 went off the record and left the court. Subsequently, Plaintiff discovered that attorney Feldman had supported and contributed to Judge Defendant2’s election campaign, during the time of the divorce proceedings. Only then did Defendant2 admit to also knowing her socially, and that she had received a campaign contribution.

36) Attorney Feldman, had previously admitted to Plaintiff’s former attorney, Missy Boyd of High Swartz, LLC, that her client, Husband, “was in no hurry to get divorced as he was getting free health insurance” from Plaintiff’s employer. She also admitted to instructing her client to disobey a support order and stop payments, to preclude Plaintiff from paying her mortgage and drive the marital residence into default, and then advised her client not to sign on a mortgage modification-which is still being offered by the bank after five years of intentional obstruction. Plaintiff has repeatedly attempted to address these matters through the court, by submitting motions and petitions to Defendant’s Defendant1 and Defendant2, but is being completely cut off and deprived of access to justice.

37) Plaintiff demanded a jury trial when it was evident that a large amount of cash was embezzled by her husband from the family business; however Judge Defendant2 denied it, and then proceeded to use what was obviously a fraudulent W-2 that the husband presented, to almost entirely cut off child support. Plaintiff also requested that the business be valued and the missing funds be investigated before a valid support order could be determined. Judge Defendant2, has continued to deny Plaintiff her right to a jury trial despite the clear mandate of 23 Pa. C.S. § 3322, and the U.S. Constitution that guarantees a jury trial in any amount over $20 and even though well over $100,000 was missing from the marital estate.

STATUTES AND RULES VIOLATED BY

JUDGES DEFENDANT1 AND DEFENDANT2

Title 23 - Domestic Relations -Part IV - Divorce

§ 3102. Legislative findings and intent.

§ 3505. Disposition of property to defeat obligations.

(a) Preliminary relief

§ 3322. Jury trial.

(a) Application for jury trial.--

§ 4302. Definitions ‘‘income’’ is defined by the support law,

§ 4305.(a) Powers and duties

(11) Initiate judicial proceedings to void a fraudulent transfer

Chapter 46 - Support of the Indigent

§ 4603. Relatives' liability; procedure.

§ 4321. Liability for support.

Subject to the provisions of this chapter:

(3) Parents may be liable for the support of their children who are 18 years of age or older.

Title 231 - Civil Procedures - Actions for Support

Rule 1910.16-2. Support Guidelines. Calculation of Net Income.

Voluntary Reduction of Income.

Rule 1910.16-2. Support Guidelines. Calculation of Net Income.

Involuntary Reduction of, and Fluctuations in, Income

Chapter 1920. Actions Of Divorce Or For Annulment Of Marriage

§1920.34. Joinder of Parties.

Rule 1931. Family Court Rules.

(3) Prompt Decisions. (i)

Rule 703. Reports of judges.

A) Policy Statement.

Does This Complaint Conform To Applicable IOP 4.08. General Standards For Evaluating Judicial Conduct Board Cases?

JCB Standard: Misconduct includes in-court or court-related judicial misconduct include inappropriate or demeaning courtroom conduct by a judge, such as yelling, profanity, gender bias, or racial slurs:

Answer: YES - Judge Defendant2 made disparaging statements toward the Plaintiff for remaining out of the workforce for an extended period of time to raise children.

JCB Standard: Whether the judge’s conduct was contrary to a public policy to which the state has made a commitment.

Answer: YES - Both Judges Defendant1 and Defendant2 violated statutes and knowingly caused extensive harm to the Plaintiff and her children as is clearly illustrated throughout the following complaint including the fundamental authority for all of Title 23 Divorce Code which clearly states that "……it is the policy of the Commonwealth to"…listing the ethics, morals and laws that these judges failed to follow.

JCB Standard: Whether the misconduct involved the unequal application of justice on the basis of such considerations as race, color, ethnic background, gender, or religion

Answer: Yes - Judges Defendant1 and Defendant2 failed to apply the standard of support due Plaintiff as a woman having sacrificed a career and exhibited bias on the basis of the petitioner’s lifestyle as a woman who stayed out of the workforce to nurse and raise three children.

§ 3701 Alimony

(12) The contribution of a spouse as homemaker.

JCB Standard: Whether the misconduct evidenced lack of independence or impartiality.

Answer: Yes - Both Judges Defendant1 and Defendant2 exhibited blatant favoritism towards the opposing attorney whom they knew for a lengthy period of time, including attending bar association social functions together. All of their actions when taken in total can only be construed as biased and against the Plaintiff as pro se litigant. For example, Judge Defendant2 clearly lacked impartiality in citing 22 quotations of the Husband and his attorney- in comparison with only 3 misquoted statements of the Pro Se Plaintiff in the October 2010 transcripts, which resulted in a very unfair and damaging support order. She is now obstructing justice by staying this case in retaliation for the Plaintiff's lawsuit against her campaign contributor,

JCB Standard: Whether the misconduct undermined the ability of the justice system to discover the truth or to reach the most just result or merely delayed the result

Answer: Yes to all of the above - Justice delayed is justice denied.. there is no legal, ethical or moral reason why this divorce is still ongoing for six years. Judges Defendant1 and Defendant2’s misconduct clearly impeded justice and in fact, facilitated the dissipation of a business, theft of marital assets, precluded the children from attending college, and caused the marital property to go into default.

JCB Standard: Whether the misconduct affected or appeared to affect the administration of justice.

Answer: Yes - Misconduct clearly affected the administration of justice. Justice delayed is justice denied.. there is no legal, ethical or moral reason why this divorce is still ongoing for six years. Judges Defendant1 and Defendant2’s misconduct clearly impeded justice and in fact, facilitated the dissipation of a business, theft of marital assets, and caused the marital property to go into default.

JCB Standard: Whether the judge was motivated by compassion for others or for personal profit vindictiveness, ill-will, or other dishonest and selfish motives

Answer: There was no compassion whatsoever; the sole motivation was to appease the fellow members of the bar association at the expense of this Plaintiff and her children and to further the profits of the attorneys as acculturated member of Montgomery County Bar.

JCB Standard: Whether the misconduct involved dishonest acts or moral turpitude.

Answer: Yes. Both these judges are morally bankrupt; the cumulative evidence contained herein from six years of dishonest acts show their of lack integrity, and they do not belong on the bench.

Powers Invested in the Judicial Conduct Board

IOP 1.02 AUTHORITY OF THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD

“The Authority empowering the Judicial Conduct Board shall be exercised exclusively by the Board operating as a Committee of the whole, except that specified matters of a purely supervisory or ministerial nature .....Absent any such specific delegation, the responsibility shall reside exclusively with the Board.”

IOP 2.09. Voting

The affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Board eligible to vote shall be required for the dismissal of a complaint or the filing of formal charges with the Court of Judicial Discipline; otherwise, all other actions and business of the Board shall be approved by the affirmative vote of a majority of the Board members present at the meeting when the vote is taken.

It is the policy of the Board that each and every matter shall be brought to a prompt, efficient and fair conclusion commensurate with the available resources of the Board and its staff. Urgent priority shall be assigned to matters that involve the potential for extreme prejudice to the administration of justice, as well as to matters having an immediacy factor such as complaints involving political campaign issues.

lOP 4.13. EMERGENCY REMOVAL WHEN ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IS SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED C.J.D.R.P. Chapter 7, Rules 701-706 and Chapter 8, Rule 801 address how the Board proceeds to address matters of immediate importance before the Court of Judicial Discipline, other than the filing of Formal Charges. Rule 701

states that relief other than by the filing of formal charges pursuant to Article V, § 18(b)

( 5), shall be initiated by a Petition for Relief. Rule 801 allows the Court to issue an interim order granting suspension prior to notice or a hearing by acting on the basis of the averments of the pleadings and such other evidence as the Court

may require.

REQUEST FOR THOROUGH INVESTIGATION

The above actions of all Defendants, including massive abuse and misconduct which continue to effect, and violation of Plaintiff’s First, Fourth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiff is being denied effective and meaningful access to the courts, is being retaliated against for protesting against her unfair treatment, by Judge Defendant2 holding up a seven year old divorce case. Plaintiff is being subjected to disparate treatment on the basis of her gender, and on the basis of her pro se status, is having her procedural due process rights cut off and denied, is having her familial relations with her children interfered with, and is being subjected to an outrageous course of conduct that is wholly beyond the bounds of a civilized society.

Submitted by:

Diane Gochin /s/

July 8, 2013

Pennsylvania Court Watch

Saturday, July 13, 2013

Complaint to the Judicial Conduct Board of the PA Supreme Court as a Result of the June 7, 2013 Meeting

Part 1 - Overview