Opinion
3 JD 2017
10-10-2017
IN RE: Andrew M. Hladio Magisterial District Judge Magisterial District 36-1-01 36th Judicial District Beaver County
RENEWED PETITION FOR RELIEF FOR INTERIM SUSPENSION WITH OR WITHOUT PAY
AND NOW, this 10th day of October 2017, comes the Judicial Conduct Board of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Board), by and through the undersigned counsel, and files this Renewed Petition for Relief for Interim Suspension With or Without Pay against the Honorable Andrew M. Hladio, pursuant to Article V, § 18(d)(2) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Rule 701 of the Court of Judicial Discipline Rules of Procedure, and Rule 13(A) of the Judicial Conduct Board Rules of Procedure and in support thereof, avers the following:
1. The Pennsylvania Constitution at Article V, § 18(d)(2) provides the Court with the authority to impose interim suspension as follows:
Prior to a hearing, the court may issue an interim order directing suspension, with or without pay, of any justice, judge or justice of the peace against whom formal charges have been filed with the court by the board or against whom has been filed an indictment or information charging a felony. An interim order under this paragraph shall not be considered a final order from which an appeal may be taken.PA. CONST. art. V, § 18(d)(2).
2. From January 2010 through February 17, 2017, Judge Hladio served as the magisterial district judge of District Court 36-1-01.
3. On December 7, 2016, Board counsel filed a Board Complaint, alleging eight counts of judicial misconduct, and a Petition for Relief for Interim Suspension With or Without Pay against Judge Hladio in this Court. In re Hladio, 6 JD 2016. See Exhibits A (Board Complaint, 6 JD 2016) and B (Petition for Relief for Interim Suspension With or Without Pay, 6 JD 2016).
4. Following a hearing, on February 17, 2017, this Court entered an Order, suspending Judge Hladio with pay for a period of 90 days and without any effect on his health benefits.
5. On May 4, 2017, this Court issued an Order extending the period of Judge Hladio's suspension with pay until June 20, 2017.
6. By its June 19, 2017 Order, this Court terminated the suspension with pay and permitted Judge Hladio to resume his judicial duties on June 21, 2017.
7. From June 21, 2017 through the present time, Judge Hladio has served as magisterial district judge of District Court 36-1-01.
8. In its June 19, 2017 Order, this Court stated:
"The Judicial Conduct Board may renew its Petition for Interim Suspension upon good cause therefor."
9. Based on the Board's investigation of four Confidential Requests for Investigation, received or initiated after the filing of the Board Complaint at 6 JD 2016, the Board determined that there is probable cause to file additional formal charges against Judge Hladio in this Court.
10. Contemporaneously with the filing of this Renewed Petition, Board Counsel is filing a Board Complaint against Judge Hladio, alleging six counts of judicial misconduct, all pertaining to his conduct which occurred during and after the time of his suspension from the bench. See Exhibit C (Board Complaint)
11. The allegations contained within the Board Complaint demonstrate a pattern of retaliation toward those who have complained about Judge Hladio's judicial conduct and those who are known to be Board witnesses for trial in 6 JD 2016. See Exhibit C, Part A, ¶¶ 12-25.
12. The allegations contained within the Board Complaint demonstrate Judge Hladio's continued pattern of improper demeanor toward those having business before the court. See , e.g., Exhibit C, Part C, ¶¶ 46, 56, 58, 63, 64, 68-69, 75-77, and 81.
13. The allegations contained within the Board Complaint against Judge Hladio undermine both public confidence in the judiciary and the reputation of the judiciary. If Judge Hladio is permitted to continue to perform any judicial duties during the pendency of the Board Complaints at 6 JD 2016 and 3 JD 2017, the public's confidence in the judiciary will continue to erode. Moreover, those having business with or before Judge Hladio, including his employees, the constables who perform work for his court and the individuals who appear before him at Central Court may continue to suffer his improper conduct.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Honorable Court enter an interim order suspending Judge Hladio, either with or without pay, pending disposition of the Board Complaints filed against him and to grant such other relief as may be deemed appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT A. GRACI
Chief Counsel DATE: October 10, 2017
By: /s/_________
ELIZABETH A. FLAHERTY
Deputy Counsel
Pa. Supreme Court ID No. 205575
Judicial Conduct Board
Pennsylvania Judicial Center
601 Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 3500
P.O. Box 62525
Harrisburg, PA 17106
EXHIBIT A
6 JD 2016 TO: ANDREW M. HLADIO
You are hereby notified that the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board has determined that there is probable cause to file formal charges against you for conduct proscribed by Article V, § 17(b) and the Administration of Justice and Disrepute Clauses of § 18(d)(1) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Rules 2A, 4A and 4C of the Old Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges and Rules 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.3(B), 2.4(A), 2.8(B) and 2.16 of the New Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges. The Board's counsel will present the case in support of the charges before the Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline.
You have an absolute right to be represented by a lawyer in all proceedings before the Court of Judicial Discipline. Your attorney should file an entry of appearance with the Court of Judicial Discipline within fifteen (15) days of service of this Board Complaint in accordance with C.J.D.R.P. No. 110.
You are hereby notified, pursuant to C.J.D.R.P. No. 302(B), that should you elect to file an omnibus motion, that motion should be filed no later than thirty (30) days after the service of this Complaint in accordance with C.J.D.R.P. No. 411.
You are further hereby notified that within thirty (30) days after the service of this Complaint, if no omnibus motion is filed, or within twenty (20) days after the dismissal of all or part of the omnibus motion, you may file an Answer admitting or denying the allegations contained in this Complaint in accordance with C.J.D.R.P. No. 413. Failure to file an Answer shall be deemed a denial of all factual allegations in the Complaint.
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, this 7th day of December, 2016, comes the Judicial Conduct Board of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and files this Board Complaint against the Honorable Andrew M. Hladio, Magisterial District Judge for Magisterial District Court 36-1-01 of Beaver County Pennsylvania, alleging that Judge Hladio has violated the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges and Article V, § § 17(b) and 18(d)(1) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as more specifically delineated herein.
1. Article V, § 18 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania grants to the Board the authority to determine whether there is probable cause to file formal charges against a judicial officer in this Court, and thereafter, to prosecute the case in support of such charges in this Court.
2. From January 2010 until the present time, Judge Hladio has served as the magisterial district judge of District Court 36-1-01.
3. Judge Hladio is an attorney, licensed to practice in Pennsylvania, and continues to maintain a small private practice, specializing in personal injury, wills and estate matters.
4. As a judicial officer, Judge Hladio was at all times required to "ensure adherence to and compliance with" the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania Policy on Non-Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity effective January 1, 2008 (revised Nov. 2013; revised July 2016) (UJS Policy).
5. Based on a Confidential Request for Investigation at JCB File No. 2014-684, the Board investigated the instant matter.
6. As a result of its investigation, and pursuant to Article V, § 18(a)(7) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Board determined that there is probable cause to file formal charges against Judge Hladio in this Court.
7. Some of the alleged judicial misconduct occurred prior to December 1, 2014 and therefore, the Old Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges (R.G.S.C.M.D.J.) apply to those allegations of misconduct.
8. Some of the alleged judicial misconduct occurred after November 30, 2014 and therefore, the New R.G.S.C.M.D.J. apply to those allegations of misconduct. A. IMPROPER CONDUCT TOWARD DISTRICT COURT CLERKS
9. In April 2008, N.B. began working as a court clerk at District Court 36-1-01.
10. In January, 2010, Judge Hladio began his new position as magisterial district judge of District Court 36-1-01.
11. In 2010, Judge Hladio first asked N.B. to go out on a date with him, but she refused his invitation.
12. Judge Hladio continued to ask N.B. to go out on dates with him.
13. During this same period of time, Judge Hladio frequently asked N.B. questions about her private life.
14. During this same period of time, Judge Hladio showed up at public places to be with N.B. even though she rebuffed his advances and invitations.
15. Judge Hladio continued to pursue N.B. and ignored the boundaries between her professional and personal life.
16. Beginning in 2010, N.B. and other court clerks at District Court 36-1-01 began filing complaints with Court Administration of the Beaver County Court of Common Pleas about Judge Hladio's inappropriate behavior toward them.
17. In August 2011, the District Court Administrator met with Judge Hladio and advised him to modify his behavior toward all court staff by eliminating inappropriate language and intrusive, offensive behaviors.
18. The District Court Administrator specifically instructed Judge Hladio that his pursuit of a personal relationship with N.B. was inappropriate and must stop.
19. In September, 2011, the District Court Administrator warned Judge Hladio not to create a hostile work environment which is prohibited by the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct for Magisterial District Judges and the UJS Policy prohibiting harassment in the workplace.
20. In January 2012, Judge Hladio recommended that N.B. be promoted to her current position of Office Manager of District Court 36-1-01.
21. In 2012, Judge Hladio continued to approach N.B. to comment on and ask questions about her personal life.
22. N.B. reported Judge Hladio's continued, unwelcome advances toward her to the District Court Administrator.
23. In 2012, Judge Hladio sat in the district court reception area and watched the court clerks perform their work duties for a period of hours at a time without speaking to anyone.
24. In 2012, Judge Hladio demonstrated sulking, vindictive behavior toward N.B. when she refused to go out with him or answer his questions about her personal life.
25. In 2012, Judge Hladio went to N.B.'s home, uninvited and unannounced.
26. In November, 2012, President Judge John D. McBride of the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, the District Court Administrator and the Deputy Court Administrator met with Judge Hladio to discuss his inappropriate behavior toward M.B. and the other clerks at his district court.
27. President Judge McBride told Judge Hladio to stop his unwelcome advances toward N.B.
28. President Judge McBride told Judge Hladio to stop his sulking and vindictive behavior toward N.B. and other clerks at his district court,
29. During the meeting, President Judge McBride, the District Court Administrator and the Deputy Court Administrator advised Judge Hladio that his conduct toward N.B. violated the UJS Policy pertaining to Sexual Harassment.
30. During the November 2012 meeting, President Judge McBride referred Hladio to AOPC legal counsel and recommended that he attend personal counseling.
31. During the November 2012 meeting, President Judge McBride told Judge Hladio that he was prohibited from creating a hostile work environment.
32. During the November 2012 meeting, President Judge McBride told Judge Hladio that he was prohibited from retaliating against N.B. and other clerks at his district court who filed complaints against him.
33. During the November 2012 meeting, President Judge McBride told Judge Hladio that if he received further complaints about his conduct, then he would file a complaint with the Judicial Conduct Board.
34. In a later meeting with the District Court Administrator, Judge Hladio admitted that he asked N.B. to go out on a date with him.
35. In December, 2013, Judge Hladio approached N.B. and asked her to go out on a date with him.
36. In April, 2014, Judge Hladio again approached N.B. and asked her to go out on a date with him.
37. In March or April, 2014, Judge Hladio learned that N.B. was dating another man.
38. After learning of N.B.'s relationship with another man, Judge Hladio acted in an angry, retaliatory manner toward N.B.
39. Judge Hladio has continued to demonstrate inappropriate conduct toward N.B
40. At times, Judge Hladio refuses to speak with N.B.
41. At other times, Judge Hladio speaks to N.B. in a sarcastic manner if at all.
42. At times, Judge Hladio ignores N.B.'s questions about work-related matters.
43. Judge Hladio speaks negatively about N.B. and her ability to perform her job duties to the other clerks at his district court.
44. Judge Hladio reassigned some of N.B.'s Office Manager job duties to other clerks at his district court.
45. The reassignment of N.B.'s job duties creates an added burden on the workloads of the other clerks at Judge Hladio's district court.
46. Judge Hladio continues to demonstrate retaliatory conduct toward N.B.
47. As the Office Manager of District Court 35-1-01, it is N.B.'s responsibility to submit bills received by the court to Judge Hladio for his approval and to subsequently pay the approved bills.
48. Between December 1, 2014 and 2016, Judge Hladio has held back bills from N.B. that require his approval.
49. When Judge Hladio fails to timely approve the payment of bills, it reflects poorly on N.B. because it interferes with her ability to timely pay amounts due and owing by the district court.
50. Judge Hladio yells and behaves in an angry manner toward his court clerks when they fail to comply with his directives about clerical matters.
51. Judge Hladio does not provide written directions to his court clerks to memorialize his directives about clerical procedures
52. On February 24, 2016, Judge Hladio told J.T., a clerk at his district court, that N.B. is not doing her job and cannot follow directions.
53. On May 6, 2015, Judge Hladio sat at the bench of his courtroom and spoke with L.D., a court clerk, criticizing her job performance while a disruptive criminal defendant waited for 40 minutes in the reception area with police officers in attendance.
54. On May 6, 2015, Judge Hladio told L.D that he was not satisfied with her job performance because she does not make him "number one."
55. Judge Hladio has repeatedly told L.D. that her first priority is to make him and his needs "number one," and that she is not complying with that directive.
56. On May 6, 2015, Judge Hladio continued to speak with L.D., criticizing the job performance of Office Manager N.B. while a disruptive criminal defendant waited for 40 minutes in the reception area with police officers in attendance.
57. On May 6, 2015, Judge Hladio told L.D. that he was displeased with the work performance of J.T., another court clerk, while a disruptive criminal defendant waited for 40 minutes in the reception area with police officers in attendance.
58. On May 6, 2015, Judge Hladio advised L.D. about administrative matters at the district court as follows:
a. When court clerks are busy, they should not answer phones;
b. When court clerks are busy, they should tell customers to come back another day to pay their fines; and
c. Court clerks should always make him their "number one priority."
59. In light of the pending retirement and part-time hours of one of Judge Hladio's court clerks, N.B. and the other court clerks asked Judge Hladio to request that Court Administration assign additional staff to his district court.
60. The court clerks were too busy to take their breaks, to go the ladies room and, at times, too busy to answer the telephone.
61. Judge Hladio refused to request more staff and yelled at current court staff for taking earned vacation leave.
62. Judge Hladio told his district court staff that the reason he did not want to request more staff is that other magisterial district judges would complain if additional staff members were to be assigned to his district court.
63. Deputy Court Administrator Bowers spoke with Judge Hladio about the request for additional help at his district court.
64. Judge Hladio was resistant to the idea of requesting additional staff at his district court and responded, "Hey, that's the courts. It happened to me in the PD's Office. We all have crazy days."
65. Deputy Court Administrator Bowers informed Judge Hladio that extra help was necessary and not a luxury in light of the amount of work demanded of his court clerks.
66. Deputy Court Administrator Bowers told Judge Hladio that she would be sending a part-time employee, two days par week, to assist at his district court. B. IMPROPER DEMEANOR
Demeanor toward Central Court Clerk
67. On March 21, 2016, Central Court Clerk S.P. handed case files up to Judge Hladio while he was seated at the judge's bench in Central Court.
68. On March 21, 2016, Judge Hladio yelled at S.P., "You didn't' tell me who they [defendants] were!"
69. On March 21, 2016, Judge Hladio yelled at S.P. each of the many times that she handed paperwork up to him at the judge's bench in Central Court.
70. Judge Hladio continued to yell at S.P. from the start of the Central Court session at 9:30 a.m. to the end of the session at 12:30-1:00 p.m.
71. Other individuals who were present at Central Court heard Judge Hladio yell at S.P.
72. Judge Hladio routinely yells at S.P. when he is assigned to hear cases at Central Court.
73. When presiding at Central Court, Judge Hladio spends a lot of time looking at his cell phone with his head down.
74. When presiding at Central Court, Judge Hladio yells at other individuals who appear before him.
75. Approximately two months before the March 21, 2016 conduct set forth above, the Assistant District Attorney and defense counsel were present at Central Court. Prior to the start of the proceeding, the attorneys agreed on a disposition and fine for a particular defendant.
76. When S.P. handed Judge Hladio the appropriate form with the agreed upon fine, he yelled, "You don't tell me what the fine is. I tell you."
77. While yelling at S.P. about the fine agreement between the ADA and defense counsel, Judge Hladio crossed out the agreed upon fine of $275 and wrote $25 instead.
78. On May 16, 2016, Judge Hladio arrived 40 minutes late to preside over the scheduled proceedings at Central Court.
79. On May 16, 2016, when Judge Hladio assumed the bench at Central Court, S.P. asked if he was ready to begin proceedings.
80. Judge Hladio yelled, "For What?" in response to S.P.'s question.
81. Judge Hladio continued to yell at S.P. during the May 16, 2016 Central Court proceedings and accused her of failing to announce the following:
a. The name of the defendant in each case;
b. The name of the Assistant District Attorney in each case; and
c. The names of the parties in each case,
82. The standard procedure at Central Court prior to May 16, 2016 did not require the court clerk to announce the names of the defendants, the names of the ADA's or the names of the parties in each case.
Demeanor Toward Lawyers in Central Court
83. When Judge Hladio presides over cases in Central Court, he demonstrates an agitated and angry demeanor.
84. During the first six months of 2016, Judge Hladio's agitated and angry demeanor grew progressively worse.
85. Assistant District Attorney Ashley Elias is regularly assigned to represent the Commonwealth in Central Court.
86. Up until approximately June to July 2015, Judge Hladio demonstrated a proper demeanor toward ADA Elias when she appeared before him in Central Court proceedings.
87. Beginning in approximately June or July, 2015, Judge Hladio began to treat ADA Elias differently than he treated other attorneys who appeared before him.
88. On July 21, 2015, ADA Elias represented the Commonwealth at a Preliminary Hearing in Judge Hladio's district court against Kenneth Wayne Moore on charges of Driving Under the Influence (DUI): General Impairment 1 Offense (Misdemeanor); Driving with License Suspended/Revoke (Summary Offense); No Rear Lights (Summary Offense); and Driving Unregistered Vehicle (Summary Offense). Commonwealth v. Kenneth Wayne Moore, Docket No. MJ-36201-CR-0000183-2015.
89. During the Preliminary Hearing, Judge Hladio dismissed the DUI charge against Moore and conducted a summary trial on the other charges, ultimately dismissing the three summary charges.
90. The dismissal of the DUI charge, followed by a Summary Trial and ruling on the other charges at Moore's Preliminary Hearing, had the effect of prohibiting the DA from refiling the DUI charge against Moore and was contrary to settled law.
91. ADA Elias filed a Motion for Reconsideration in Commonwealth v. Moors in the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County.
92. The Court of Common Pleas granted the Motion for Reconsideration in Commonwealth v. Moore.
93. Judge Hladio's demeanor and attitude toward ADA Elias changed dramatically after she prevailed on appeal from Judge Hladio's ruling in Commonwealth v. Moore.
94. Judge Hladio openly exhibits anger and dislike for ADA Elias when she appears before him in Central Court.
95. On May 16, 2016, Judge Hladio announced from the bench, "The DA needs to say, "May it please the Court," before addressing him.
96. The formal salutation, "May it please the Court," has never been required in Central Court by Judge Hladio or any other magisterial district judge.
97. On May 16, 2016, a client of Assistant Public Defender Dirk Goodwald was not available which necessarily delayed his presentation of the case.
98. Knowing about the delay in Assistant Public Defender Goodwald's case, ADA Elias asked S.P. if one of her cases, a hearing in absentia, could be heard next on the list of cases since she expected it would take approximately five minutes.
99. When S.P. asked Judge Hladio to consider ADA Elias's request, he yelled at S.P. and refused the request.
100. Forty minutes later, when ADA Elias tried to present the hearing in absentia, Judge Hladio yelled at her in front of a crowded courtroom of ADAs, public defenders, other attorneys, police officers and defendants.
101. Judge Hladio continued to yell at ADA Elias for approximately two minutes, admonishing her for interrupting him and repeating the words he had yelled at S.P.
102. Based on his observations at Central Court, another ADA informed Beaver County District Attorney David J. Lozier about Judge Hladio's conduct of yelling at ADA Elias and S.P.
103. On May 16, 2016, District Attorney Lozier entered Central Court and observed that Judge Hladio ignored ADA Elias's requests pertaining to her assigned cases, as if she had not spoken.
104. District Attorney Lozier also observed that Judge Hladio ignored the requests made by the Public Defender pertaining to cases in which ADA Elias represented the Commonwealth.
105. On May 16, 2016, when District Attorney Lozier spoke up and made the requests pertaining to ADA Elias's cases, Judge Hladio listened to and acted upon those requests.
106. On May 16, 2016, Judge Hladio continued to ignore ADA Elias whenever she spoke as if she were not present in the courtroom.
107. Judge Hladio routinely puts ADA Elias's cases at the end of the day when he presides in Central Court which causes police officers, witnesses and other attorneys to experience long delays pertaining to their cases.
Demeanor Toward Litigants and Police Officers in District Court
Docket No. MJ-36101-CR-0000331-2008
108. On May 6, 2015 at 1:05 p.m., a criminal defendant, R.F., approached the counter of the reception area of Judge Hladio's district court and spoke with L.D., a court clerk.
109. R.F. stated that she received instructions at the local welfare office to go to Judge Hladio's district court because of an outstanding warrant for her arrest.
110. The warrant pertained to a September 12, 2008 criminal complaint filed by Ambridge Police Department against R.F. on charges of Open Lewdness and Disorderly Conduct. Docket No. MJ-36101-CR-0000331-2008.
111. According to the clerks at Judge Hladio's district court, on September 12, 2008, R.F. appeared to be highly intoxicated.
112. The court clerks believed that there was a substantial risk that R.F. would flee from the district court building.
113. R.F. refused to sit down and was irate.
114. District Court Office Manager N.B. contacted Judge Hladio by telephone and told him that he was needed at district court for an arraignment.
115. Based on her actions in the district court reception area, the court clerks observed that R.F. appeared to be a danger to herself and to others.
116. District court staff contacted the Ambridge Police Department for assistance.
117. Ambridge Police Officers arrived at the district court and observed R.F.'s conduct which continued for a considerable period of time.
118. At 1:30 p.m. on May 5, 2015, Judge Hladio arrived at the district court where L.D. informed him that R.F. was intoxicated.
119. L.D. provided detailed information to Judge Hladio about R.F.'s conduct and statements.
120. Judge Hladio put on his robe, went into the courtroom and sat at the bench,
121. A few minutes after Judge Hladio entered the courtroom, L.D. asked Judge Hladio if he was ready to arraign R.F.
122. Judge Hladio responded that he thought he was being "set up."
123. Judge Hladio told L.D. that he had to be careful because the police, the court clerks and the defendants are all trying to set him up.
124. The May 6, 2015 incident with R.F. at Judge Hladio's district court occurred less than two months after Board counsel first deposed Judge Hladio on March 10, 2015.
125. While he sat at the judge's bench in the courtroom, Judge Hladio spoke with L.D. and criticized her job performance while R.F. waited in the reception area with police officers in attendance.
126. Judge Hladio told L.D. that he was not satisfied with her job performance because she does not make him "number one."
127. Judge Hladio has repeatedly told L.D. that her first priority is to make him and his needs "number one," and that she is not complying with that directive.
128. On May 6, 2015, Judge Hladio continued to speak with L.D., criticizing the job performance of Office Manager N.B., while R.F. waited in the reception area with the police officers in attendance,
129. J.T., another court clerk, entered the courtroom to tell Judge Hladio that the police officers had to block the door to prevent R.F. from fleeing the district court building.
130. When J.T. entered the courtroom, L.D. could hear the defendant, R.F., behaving in a loud and agitated manner.
131. Despite the commotion in the reception area, Judge Hladio still would not permit R.F. to enter the courtroom.
132. After J.T. left the courtroom, Judge Hladio told L.D. that he was displeased with J.T.'s work performance.
133. While R.F. continued to wait in the reception area with the police officers in attendance, Judge Hladio advised L.D. about administrative matters at the district court as follows:
d. When court clerks are busy, they should not answer phones;
e. When court clerks are busy, they should tell customers to come back another day to pay their fines; and
f. Court clerks should always make him their "number one priority."
134. On May 6, 2015, at 2:10 p.m., 40 minutes after Judge Hladio arrived at his district court, he permitted R.F. to enter the courtroom.
135. On May 6, 2015, Judge Hladio conducted the Preliminary Arraignment in R.F.'s 2008 criminal matter.
136. Ambridge Police Officer John Bialik was at Judge Hladio's district court on May 6, 2015 and was prepared to arrest R.F. for public intoxication.
137. Judge Hladio set bail at $50 unsecured and directed the attending police officers to release R.F. from the handcuffs and to let her go.
138. While waiting in the reception area of the district court for an hour and 10 minutes, R.F. urinated in her clothing. The urine soaked through her clothing and onto the chairs which she had occupied in the reception area
Docket No. MJ-36101-NT-0000390-2015
139. On March 29, 2016, Judge Hladio presided over a summary trial at his district court in a criminal matter in which J.H. entered a guilty plea to one count of Public Drunkenness and Similar Misconduct. Docket No. MJ-36101-NT-0000390-2015.
140. Police Officer Timothy Depenhart of the Ambridge Police Department appeared before Judge Hladio in the March 29, 2016 criminal case against J.H.
141. At the March 29, 2016 Summary Trial, Officer Depenhart requested that Judge Hladio sentence J.H. to a minimal fine.
142. Judge Hladio responded to Officer Depenhart, "Hold on, I'm busy."
143. Judge Hladio then spoke directly to J.H. in a degrading tone, telling her that people in the community are complaining about people like her.
144. Judge Hladio told J.H. that he did not need people like her in his town, urinating on themselves and being drunk all the time.
145. At the March 29, 2016 Summary Trial, Judge Hladio continued to speak to J.H. in a degrading manner for approximately 10 minutes.
146. Judge Hladio then asked Officer Depenhart, "Why does the Commonwealth wish to have a minimum fine?"
147. Officer Depenhart stated that his recommendation was based on the facts that J.H. had limited financial resources and that she had not been involved in any similar incidents in the past year.
148. Judge Hladio responded, "Oh, so if you don't have any money you can do whatever you want in town?"
149. Judge Hladio also said to Officer Depenhart, "I guess its ok to urinate everywhere and on yourselves, be drunk in public in this town just because you don't have any money."
150. Officer Depenhart told Judge Hladio that it was unprofessional for him to degrade him in front of J.H.
151. Judge Hladio denied that he degraded Officer Depenhart.
152. Judge Hladio asked Officer Depenhart, "How about if all these people were to come live in your community and urinate on themselves and everywhere while being drunk."
153. Judge Hladio told Officer Depenhart, "we don't need them [people like J.H.] here and you think its ok since they deserve a minimal fine."
154. During the heated exchange, Judge Hladio spoke to Officer Depenhart in a loud voice about people in town who are complaining about people like J.H.
155. During the heated exchange, Officer Depenhart yelled at Judge Hladio and told him to act professionally.
156. Judge Hladio adjudicated J.H. guilty and sentenced her to the maximum fine with the condition that if she did not make $50 payments, she would be sentenced to jail.
Docket No. MJ-36101-TR-0000144-2014
157. On February 29, 2014, Ambridge Borough Police Officer Sean A. Owen filed a Traffic Citation in Judge Hladio's district court, charging a truck driver with driving an overweight truck over the 11 Street Bridge in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4902(a) with fines and costs listed at $6,432.50. Commonwealth v. Ruben Alberto Carrazan, Docket No. MJ-36101-TR-0000144-2014.
158. Officer Owen is certified by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation in the weighing and measuring of vehicles.
159. On March 24, 2014, prior to the Summary Trial in Carrazan, Police Officer Owen waited for two and one-half hours while Judge Hladio conducted a summary trial in another matter.
160. After Police Officer Owen presented evidence at the Carrazan Summary Trial, a question arose about old and new traffic studies. Judge Hladio asked Officer Owen about particular case law which Officer Owen believed was unrelated to the issue at the Carrazan hearing.
161. When Police Officer Owens attempted to look up the particular case law in his Bridge and Traffic Study Binder, Judge Hladio told him he had "thirty-seven seconds" to find the information.
162. After approximately one minute had passed, Judge Hladio told Officer Owens that he should have been prepared and dismissed the Carrazan case. C. FAILURE TO UPHOLD AND APPLY THE LAW
(1) Landlord-Tenant Case
163. In 2015, S.S. was a tenant in Ambridge Towers, a housing project in Ambridge, PA.
164. The Housing Authority of County of Beaver (HACB) manages Ambridge Towers.
165. On November 6, 2015, Ambridge Police were summoned to Ambridge Towers to investigate an incident in which S.S. physically attacked a female tenant, M.M., in the hallway of the apartment building.
166. M.M. declined to press criminal charges and instead requested that S.S. obtain psychological care.
167. Based on the November 6, 2015 incident, on January 14, 2016, HACB filed a Landlord-Tenant Complaint against S.S., seeking his eviction and repossession of his apartment. Docket No. MJ-36101-LT-0000006-2016.
168. On January 27, 2016, Judge Hladio presided over the HACB Landlord-Tenant Hearing.
169. Babette Robertson, the Project Manager for HACB, represented the plaintiff Landlord at the HACB Landlord-Tenant Hearing.
170. Ms. Robertson is not an attorney but regularly represents HACB in Landlord-Tenant matters in Judge Hladio's district court.
171. On multiple prior occasions, Judge Hladio questioned Ms. Robertson why HACB sent her, a non-attorney, to represent HACB in Landlord-Tenant cases in his district court instead of an attorney.
172. Defense counsel informed Judge Hladio that if S.S. were to be evicted from his apartment, then he would need 60 days to find another apartment.
173. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Hladio entered an Order for a 60-day continuance in the HACB case against S.S.
174. Ms. Robertson objected to the 60-day continuance with no decision and stated that she hoped nothing bad would happen as a result of Judge Hladio failing to take action in the HACB Landlord-Tenant case against S.S.
175. According to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure for Magisterial District Judges pertaining to actions for the recovery of possession of real property, a magisterial district judge is required to issue a judgment at the conclusion of a Landlord-Tenant hearing or within three days following the hearing. Pa.R.C.P.M.D.J. No. 514(c)(1).
176. Based on the 60-day continuance without a judgment in the HACB Landlord-Tenant case against S.S., HACB could not evict S.S. from Ambridge Towers.
177. Based on the 60-day continuance without a judgment in the HACB Landlord-Tenant against S.S., HACB could not file an appeal.
178. George A. Verlihay, Solicitor for HACB, contacted President Judge McBride and complained about the grant of a 60-day continuance without decision in the HACB Landlord-Tenant case against S.S.
179. On January 28, 2016, Deputy Court Administrator Aileen Bowers questioned Judge Hladio about the 60-day continuance that he granted in the HACB Landlord-Tenant matter against S.S.
180. During the January 28, 2016 meeting, Judge Hladio told Deputy Court Administrator Bowers that he was familiar with Pa.R.C.P.M.D.J. No. 514(c)(1), but that he opted not to follow the Rule because he thought something could be worked out between the parties,
181. During the January 28, 2016 meeting, Deputy Court Administrator Bowers asked Judge Hladio why he did not abide by Pa.R.C.P.M.D.J. No. 514(c)(1) in the HACB Landlord-Tenant matter against S.S. Judge Hladio responded, "Well, if that's what you want me to do, that's what I'll do."
182. Deputy Court Administrator Bowers informed Judge Hladio that he must abide by the Rules and not by what she wanted him to do in the HACB Landlord-Tenant natter against S.S.
183. On February 1, 2015, Judge Hladio entered a ruling in favor of S.S and against HACB.
(2) Trucking Violation Cases
184. Under Pennsylvania law, state and local authorities may impose restrictions on the size and weight of vehicles permitted to traverse particular highways or bridges as follows:
(1) The Commonwealth and local authorities with respect to highways and bridges under their jurisdictions may prohibit the operation of vehicles and may impose restrictions as to the weight or size of vehicles operated upon a highway or bridge.75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4902(a)(1).
185. The size and weight restrictions for vehicles operating on a particular highway or bridge may be imposed only after engineering and traffic studies demonstrate that "the highway or bridge may be damaged or destroyed unless use by vehicles is prohibited or the permissible size or weight of vehicles is reduced." Id.
186. The penalty for a person who violates the prohibition against operating an overweight vehicle on a particular highway or bridge is set forth in 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4902(g)(1) which provides:
(1) Any person operating a vehicle or combination upon a highway or bridge in violation of a prohibition or restriction imposed under subsection (a) is guilty of a summary offense, and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine of $75, except that any person convicted of operating a vehicle with a gross weight in excess of a posted weight shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine of $150 plus $150 for each 500 pounds, or part thereof, in excess of 3,000 pounds over the maximum allowable weight.75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4902(g)(1).
187. The statutory fines imposed upon persons who violate 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4902(a)(1) are mandatory. See Commonwealth v. Church, 522 A.2d 30, 36 (Pa. 1987).
188. A magisterial district judge, who enters a guilty verdict against the driver or owner of a truck for violating the weight restriction on a bridge or highway, must impose a mandatory fine and does not have discretion to discount the amount of the fine.
189. The Eleventh Street Bridge connects Ambridge to communities on the other side of the Ohio River.
190. As a result of the risk for structural damage or destruction of the Eleventh Street Bridge, weight restrictions are in place to prohibit overweight vehicles from operating on the Eleventh Street Bridge.
191. Truck drivers are prohibited from driving trucks over the Eleventh 5treet Bridge which exceed the restricted weight limits.
192. Despite the restrictions placed on vehicular weight, some truck drivers continue to drive trucks in excess of the weight limits over the Eleventh Street Bridge.
193. Ambridge Borough Police Department Officers John N. Bialik, Sean A. Owen and Sokhen (Jason) Seng completed the Vehicle Weighing and Measuring Training Program in accord with Section 4981(a) of the Vehicle Code, as approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. 75 Pa.C.S. § 4981(a).
194. Police Officers Bialik, Owen and Seng possess Certificates of Training which state that they are qualified and trained in the use of weighing and measuring equipment. Each of the officers is designated as a Qualified Commonwealth Employee pursuant to Section 4102 of the Vehicle Code. 75 Pa.C.S. § 4102.
195. As Qualified Commonwealth Employees, Officers Bialik, Owen and Seng stop the overweight trucks, weigh and measure the trucks and issue traffic citations to the drivers for violating the restrictive weight limits on the Eleventh Street Bridge.
196. Judge Hladio presides over many of the summary trials for traffic citations issued to truck drivers who violate the restrictive weight limits on the Ambridge bridges.
197. Prior to the start of the summary trials in the overweight truck cases, police officers may offer defendant truck drivers an opportunity to plead to a lesser charge to reduce the fine and costs.
198. Under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4902(g)(1), the statutory fines for the citations issued to truck drivers for driving an overweight truck across the Eleventh Street Bridge can amount to thousands of dollars.
199. The proceeds from the fines for driving an overweight truck on a bridge in Ambridge are split in half between the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Borough of Ambridge.
200. Judge Hladio is aware that the sentence for a guilty verdict for a summary violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4902(a)(1) is a mandatory statutory fine. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4902(g)(1).
201. Beginning in 2014 and continuing through 2016, upon adjudicating truck drivers or owners guilty of driving overweight trucks on Ambridge bridges, Judge Hladio often sentences the defendants to fines which are significantly less than the mandatory fines provided for in 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4902(g)(1).
202. When Judge Hladio sentences truckers to lesser fines for violating weight restrictions for bridges, both the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Borough of Ambridge are deprived of the income that they would have received if he sentenced the truckers to the mandatory fines set forth by statute.
203. For example, on July 29, 2015, Police Officer John Bialik filed a Traffic Citation against Steve R. Everett, Jr., for driving his truck, weighing 80,263 pounds, over an Ambridge bridge with a weight limit of 44,000 pounds, in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4902(a). Officer Bialik listed the fine as $10,483.50. Commonwealth v. Steve R. Everett, Jr., Docket No. MJ-36101-TR-0000820-2015.
204. On October 9, 2015, Judge Hladio presided over the Summary Trial in Commonwealth v. Everett, Jr. Judge Hladio adjudicated the defendant guilty of "Violation Size/Weight Limits" and sentenced him to a fine of $5,700.00 plus costs for a total amount due of $5,991.50.
205. In the following 2014-2016 cases, Judge Hladio entered guilty verdicts for the summary offense of operating an overweight truck on a restricted bridge or highway in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4902(a), yet sentenced the truck drivers or owners to lesser fines than mandated under the Vehicle Code at 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4902(g)(1):
2014 Cases
| Case Name & No. | Sentenced | Citation: Fine/Costs | Sentence: Fine/Costs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comm. v. BallegeerTR-0000812-2014 | 10/14/14 | $8,850.50/$9,132.50 | $5,550.00/$5,840.50 |
| Comm. v. WhaleyTR-0000376-2014 | 04/22/14 | $7,585.50/$7,632.50 | $3,750.00/$4,040.50 |
| Comm. v. AnthonyTR-0000843-2014 | 07/17/14 | $10,650.00/$10,932.50 | $7,650.00/$7,940.50 |
| Comm. v. HummelTR-0001136-2014 | 08/19/14 | $6,000.00/$6,282.50 | $3,500.00/$3,790.50 |
| Comm. v. AnthonyTR-0001215-2014 | 08/26/14 | $8,850.00/$9,132.50 | $6,450.00/$6,740.50 |
| Comm. v. SmithTR-0001229-2014 | 03/26/14 | $6,000.00/$6,282.50 | $4,500.00/$4,790.50 |
| Comm. v. DimovskiTR-0001627-2014 | 11/25/14 | $8,700.00/$8,982.50 | $6,100.00/$6,290.50 |
| Comm. v. ShopeTR-0001913-2014 | 12/23/14 | $9,900.00/$10,182.50 | $6,600.00/$6,890.50 |
| Comm. v. HelselTR-0001925-2014 | 12/18/14 | $8,850.00/$9,132.50 | $5,250.00/$5,540.50 |
2015 Cases
| Case Name & No. | Sentenced | Citation: Fine/Costs | Sentence: Fine/Costs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comm. v. BabatchevTR-0000025-2015 | 03/09/15 | $9,750.00/$10,033.50 | $7,050.00/$7,341.50 |
| Comm. v. BowserTR-0000069-2015 | 03/23/15 | $9,600.00/$9,883.50 | $6,600.00/$6,891.50 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comm. v. PhomphakdyTR-0000201-2015 | 04/30/15 | $9,835.00/$10,113.50 | $5,285.00/$5,576.50 |
| Comm. V. HarrisonTR-0000728-2015 | 04/28/15 | $7,650.00/$7,983.50 | $4,950.00/$5,241.50 |
2016 Cases
| Case Name & No. | Sentenced | Citation: Fine/Costs | Sentence: Fine/Costs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comm. v. MessinaTR-0001407-2015 | 02/11/16 | $8,700.00/$8,988.50 | $6,150.00/$6,441.50 |
| Comm. v. HermanTR-0000104-2016 | 03/28/16 | $9,000.00/$9,283.00 | $5,100.00/$5,391.50 |
| Comm. v. IvanchukTR-0000433-2016 | 05/20/16 | $8,830.00/$9,125.50 | $5,250.00/$5,541.50 |
| Comm v. KerseyTR-0000588-2016 | 06/16/16 | $9,600.00/$9,883.50 | $5000.00/$5,291.50 |
| Comm. v. YoungTR-0001006-2016 | 08/03/16 | $10,650.00/$10,933.50 | $7,500.00/$7,791.50 |
206. At summary trials on trucking cases, Officer Owen asked Judge Hladio how he can reduce the fines specified by statute when he has adjudicated the truckers guilty as charged in the Summary Traffic Citations. Judge Hladio responded that the amount of the fine is his decision based on the evidence.
207. At summary trials on trucking cases, Officer Owen advised Judge Hladio that the fines for violations of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4902(a) are not "sliding" fines. Judge Hladio stated that it is just what he decides to do.
208. In his June 28, 2016 letter to Board staff, Judge Hladio stated the following:
"In overweight truck cases, the defendant and counsel are always very upset about how high the fines and costs are
if found guilty and defense and counsel hate the court for being part of such high fines and costs where a lot of times the driver says my gps took me there or some other innocent excuses."D. CHARGES
Count One
Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety
A. Old Rule
209. By virtue of some or all of the conduct set forth in Part A & B, Judge Hladio violated Rule 2A of the Old Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges, effective through November 30, 2014.
210. Rule 2 is titled "Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety to be Avoided" and provides in pertinent part:
A. Magisterial district judges shall respect and comply with the law and shall conduct themselves at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Magisterial district judges shall not allow their family, social or other relationships to influence their judicial conduct or judgment.
211. As a judicial officer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Judge Hladio was and is at all times required to ensure adherence to and compliance with the Unified Judicial System Policy on Non-Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity (UJS Policy) which prohibits sexual harassment and retaliatory conduct and "ensures that all individuals having business with the UJS be treated in a dignified, civil, respectful and non-discriminatory manner."
212. By his 2010 through April 2014 conduct of persistently inviting N.B. on dates, inquiring about her personal life and showing up at her home uninvited, despite her rejection of his unwelcome advances and warnings from the President Judge and Court Administration to stop such behavior, Judge Hladio failed to ensure adherence to and compliance with the UJS Policy and failed to ensure that N.B. was treated in a dignified, civil, respectful and non-discriminatory manner.
213. By his April 2014 through November 30, 2014 conduct of acting in an angry manner toward N.B., yelling at her, refusing to speak to her at times, speaking to her in a sarcastic manner at other times, ignoring her questions about work related matters and demonstrating sulking vindictive behavior, Judge Hladio failed to ensure adherence to and compliance with the UJS Policy and failed to ensure that N.B. was treated in a dignified, civil, respectful and non-discriminatory manner.
214. By his failure to ensure adherence to and compliance with the UJS Policy and his failure to ensure that N.B. was treated in a dignified, civil, respectful and non-discriminatory manner, Judge Hladio violated the UJS Policy.
215. By his October 31, 2013 to November 30, 2014 post-Carney conduct of violating the UJS Policy, Judge Hladio failed to respect and comply with the law. See In re Camay, 79 A.3d 490 (Pa, 2013)
216. By his failure to ensure adherence to and compliance with the UJS Policy and his failure to ensure that N.B. was treated in a dignified, civil, respectful and non-discriminatory manner, Judge Hladio failed to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
217. By his conduct of pursuing a personal relationship with N.B., and his retaliatory conduct toward her when she rejected his unwelcome advances, despite warnings from the President Judge and Court Administration to cease such behavior, Judge Hladio allowed his social or other relationships to influence his judicial conduct or judgment.
218. By his January 2014 through November 30, 2014 conduct of failing to impose mandatory statutory fines, as set forth in 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4902(g)(1), when sentencing truckers for driving overweight vehicles over Ambridge bridges in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4902(a), Judge Hladio failed to respect and comply with the law.
219. As a result of all of the conduct set forth above, Judge Hladio violated Rule 2A of the Old Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges.
B. New Rule
220. By virtue of some or all of the conduct set forth in Parts A & B, Judge Hladio violated Canon 1, Rule 1.1 of the New Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges, effective December 1, 2014.
221. Canon 1, Rule 1.1 is titled "Compliance with the Law" and provides:
A magisterial district judge shall comply with the law, including the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges.R.G.S.C.M.D.J. Canon 1, Rule 1.1.
222. By his December 1, 2014 through 2016 conduct of acting in an angry manner toward M.B., yelling at her, refusing to speak to her at times, speaking to her in a sarcastic manner at other times, ignoring her questions about work related matters and demonstrating sulking vindictive behavior, Judge Hladio failed to ensure adherence to and compliance with the UJS Policy, failed to ensure that N.B. was treated in a dignified, civil, respectful and non-discriminatory manner and thereby violated the UJS Policy against retaliation and the R.G.S.C.M.D.J.
223. By his December 1, 2014 through 2015 conduct of openly criticizing N.B. and her ability to perform her job duties to her co-workers, Judge Hladio violated the UJS Policy against retaliation and the R.G.S.C.M.D.J.
224. By his December 1, 2014 through 2015 conduct of violating the UJS Policy and the R.G.S.C.M.D.J., Judge Hladio failed to comply with the law.
225. By his December 1, 2014 through 2016 conduct of failing to impose mandatory statutory fines, as set forth in 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4902(g)(1), when sentencing truckers for driving overweight vehicles over Ambridge bridges in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4902(a), Judge Hladio failed to comply with the law.
226. As a result of all of the conduct set forth above, Judge Hladio violated Canon 1, Rule 1.1 of the New Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges.
C. New Rule
227. By virtue of some or all of the conduct set forth in Parts A, B & C, Judge Hladio violated Canon 1, Rule 1.2 of the New Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges, effective December 1, 2014.
228. Canon 1, Rule 1.2 is titled "Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary and provides:
A magisterial district judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.R.G.S.C.M.D.J. Canon 1, Rule 1.2.
229. By his December 1, 2014 through 2016 conduct of violating the UJS Policy and behaving in a retaliatory manner at his district court, Judge Hladio failed to promote public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
230. By his December 1, 2014 through 2016 conduct of violating the UJS Policy and behaving in a retaliatory manner at his district court, Judge Hladio failed to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
231. By his 2016 repetitive conduct of yelling at S.P. in Central Court, Judge Hladio failed to promote public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
232. By his 2016 repetitive conduct of yelling at S.P. in Central Court, Judge Hladio failed to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
233. By his 2015-2016 conduct of openly exhibiting anger and dislike for ADA Elias and yelling at her in Central Court, Judge Hladio failed to promote pubic confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
234. By his 2015-2016 conduct of openly exhibiting anger and dislike for ADA Elias and yelling at her in Central Court, Judge Hladio failed to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
235. By his 2016 conduct of engaging in a heated exchange and yelling at Police Officer Depenhart in the presence of J.H. during her criminal Summary Trial in Docket No. MJ-36101-NT-0000390-2015, Judge Hladio failed to promote public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
236. By his 2016 conduct of engaging in a heated exchange and yelling at Police Officer Depenhart in the presence J.H. during her criminal Summary Trial in in Docket No. MJ-36101-NT-0000390-2015, Judge Hladio failed to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
237. By his 2016 conduct of speaking in a degrading manner to J.H. during her criminal Summary Trial in Docket No. MJ-36101-NT-0000390-2015, Judge Hladio failed to promote public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
238. By his 2016 conduct of speaking in a degrading manner to J.H. during her criminal Summary Trial in Docket No. MJ-36101-NT-0000390-2015, Judge Hladio failed to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
239. By his 2015 conduct of keeping R.F. waiting for 40 minutes in the reception area for her arraignment in Docket No. MJ-36101-CR-0000331-2008 because of his belief that it was a "set up" against him, Judge Hladio failed to promote public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
240. By his 2015 conduct of keeping R.F. waiting for 40 minutes in the reception area of his district court for her arraignment in Docket No. MJ-36101-CR-0000331-2008 because of his belief that it was a "set up" against him, Judge Hladio failed to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
241. By his failure to uphold and apply the law in the HACB Landlord-Tenant case against S.S, Judge Hladio failed to promote public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
242. By his failure to uphold and apply the law in the 2016 HACB Landlord-Tenant case against S.S, Judge Hladio failed to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety
243. As a result of all of the conduct set forth above, Judge Hladio violated Canon 1, Rule 1.2 of the New Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges.
Count Two
A. Old Rule
244. By virtue of some or all of the conduct set forth in Part A, Judge Hladio violated Rule 4C of the Old Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges, effective through November 30, 2014.
245. Rule 4 is titled "Adjudicative Responsibilities" and provides in pertinent part:
C. Magisterial district judges shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom they deal in their official capacity . . . .R.G.S.C.M.D.J. No. 4C.
246. By his 2011 conduct of inappropriate language and intrusive, offensive behavior toward his court clerks, Judge Hladio failed to act in a dignified and courteous manner toward others with whom he deals in his official capacity.
247. By his April 2010 to November 30, 2014 conduct of yelling, acting in an angry manner, and demonstrating sulking and vindictive behavior toward his court clerks, Judge Hladio failed to act in a patient, dignified and courteous manner toward others with whom he deals in his official capacity.
248. By his March 24, 2014 conduct of telling Officer Owen that he had "thirty-seven seconds" to find and present particular case law that he had requested during the Summary Trial in Carrazan, and then dismissing the case after one minute, Judge Hladio failed to act in a patient, dignified and courteous manner toward others with whom he deals in his official capacity.
249. As a result of all of the conduct set forth above, Judge Hladio violated Rule 4C of the Old Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges.
B. New Rule
250. By virtue of some or all of the conduct set forth in Parts A & B, Judge Hladio violated Canon 2, Rule 2.8(B) of the New Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges, effective December 1, 2014.
251. Canon 2, Rule 2.8 is titled "Decorum, Demeanor, and Communication in an Official Capacity and provides in pertinent part:
(B) A magisterial district judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, witnesses, lawyers, authorized representatives, court staff, court officials, and others with whom the magisterial district judge deals in an official capacity . . . .R.G.S.C.M.D.J. Canon 2, Rule 2.8(B).
252. By his December 1, 2014 through 2016 conduct of refusing to speak to N.B. at times, speaking to her in a sarcastic manner at other times, and ignoring her questions about work related matters, Judge Hladio failed to act in a patient, dignified and courteous manner toward court staff with whom he deals in his official capacity.
253. By his December 1, 2014 through 2016 conduct of yelling, acting in an angry manner, and demonstrating sulking and vindictive behavior toward his court clerks, including N.B., Judge Hladio failed to act in a patient, dignified and courteous manner toward court staff with whom he deals in his official capacity.
254. By his 2016 repetitive conduct of yelling at S.P. in Central Court, Judge Hladio failed to act in a patient, dignified and courteous manner toward Central Court staff with whom he deals in his official capacity.
255. By his 2015-2016 conduct of openly exhibiting anger and dislike for ADA Elias and yelling at her in Central Court, Judge Hladio failed to act in a patient, dignified and courteous manner toward a lawyer with whom he deals in his official capacity.
256. By his 2016 conduct of engaging in a heated exchange and yelling at Police Officer Depenhart in the presence of J.H. during the criminal Summary Trial in Docket No. MJ-35101-NT-0000390-2015, Judge Hladio failed to act in a patient, dignified and courteous manner toward another with whom he deals in his official capacity.
257. By his 2016 conduct of speaking in a degrading manner to J.H during the criminal summary trial in Docket No. MJ-36101-NT-0000390-2015, Judge Hladio failed to act in a patient, dignified and courteous manner toward a litigant with whom he deals in his official capacity.
258. By his 2016 conduct of delaying the arraignment for R.F. in Docket No. MJ-36101-CR-0000331-2008 for 40 minutes because he believed that it was a "set-up" against him, Judge Hladio failed to act in a patient, dignified and courteous manner toward a litigant with whom he deals in his official capacity.
259. As a result of all of the conduct set forth above, Judge Hladio violated Canon 2, Rule 2.8(B) of the New Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges
Count Three
A. Old Rule
260. By virtue of some or all of the conduct set forth in Part C, Judge Hladio violated Rule 4A of the Old Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges, effective through November 30, 2014.
261. Rule 4 is titled "Adjudicative Responsibilities" and provides in pertinent part:
A. Magisterial district judges shall be faithful to the law and maintain competence in it. They shall be unswayed by . . . fear of criticism.R.G.S.C.M.D.J. No. 4A.
262. By his January 1, 2014 through November 30, 2014 conduct of failing to impose mandatory statutory fines, as set forth in 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4902(g)(1), when sentencing truckers for driving overweight vehicles over Ambridge bridges, in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4902(a), Judge Hladio failed to be faithful to the law and maintain competence in it.
263. By his January 1, 2014 through November 30, 2014 conduct of failing to impose mandatory sentences following guilty verdicts in overweight trucking cases, based in part on his belief that defendants and counsel in overweight trucking cases "are always upset about high fines and costs if found guilty" and "defense and counsel hate the court for being a part of such high fines and costs," Judge Hladio failed to be unswayed by fear of criticism.
264. As a result of all of the conduct set forth above, Judge Hladio violated Rule 4A of the Old Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges.
B. New Rule
255. By virtue of some or all of the conduct set forth in Part C, Judge Hladio violated Canon 2, Rule 2.2 of the New Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges, effective December 1, 2014.
266. Rule 2.2 is titled "Impartiality and Fairness" and provides:
A magisterial district judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.R.G.S.C.M.D.J. Canon 2, Rule 2.2.
267. By his conduct of continuing the 2016 HACB Landlord-Tenant case for 60 days in defiance of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure for Magisterial District Judges No. 514(c)(1), Judge Hladio failed to uphold and apply the law.
268. By his conduct of continuing the 2016 HACB Landlord-Tenant case for 60 days in defiance of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure for Magisterial District Judges No. 514(c)(1), Judge Hladio failed to perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.
269. By his December 1, 2014 through 2016 conduct of failing to impose mandatory statutory fines, as set forth in 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4902(g)(1), when sentencing truckers for driving overweight vehicles over Ambridge bridges, Judge Hladio failed to uphold and apply the law.
270. By his December 1, 2014 through 2016 conduct of failing to impose mandatory statutory fines, as set forth in 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4902(g)(1), when sentencing truckers for driving overweight vehicles over Ambridge bridges, Judge Hladio failed to perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.
271. As a result of all of the conduct set forth above, Judge Hladio violated Canon 2, Rule 2.2 of the New Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges.
C. New Rule
272. By virtue of all or some of the conduct set forth in Part C, Judge Hladio violated Canon 2, Rule 2.4(A) of the New Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges, effective December 1, 2014.
273. Rule 2.4 is titled "External Influences on Judicial Conduct and provides in pertinent part:
(A) A magisterial district judge shall not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism.R.G.S.C.M.D.J. Canon 2, Rule 2.4(A).
274. By his December 1, 2014 through 2016 conduct of failing to impose mandatory sentences following guilty verdicts in overweight trucking cases, based in part on his belief that the defendants and their counsel "are always upset about high fines and costs if found guilty" and "defense and counsel hate the court for being a part of such high fines and costs,", Judge Hladio was swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism,
275. By all of the conduct set forth above, Judge Hladio violated Canon 2, Rule 2.4(A) of the New Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges.
Count Four
276. By virtue of some or all of the conduct set forth in Part A, Judge Hladio violated Canon 2, Rule 2.3(B) of the New Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges, effective December 1, 2014.
277. Rule 2.3 is titled "Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment" and provides in pertinent part:
(B) A magisterial district judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct . . . manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment, including but not limited to bias, prejudice, or harassment based upon . . . sex . . . .R.G.S.C.M.D.J. Canon 2, Rule 2.3(B).
278. By his December 1, 2014 through 2016 conduct of creating an untenable work environment following N.B.'s rejection of his unwelcome advances, Judge Hladio did manifest bias or prejudice, and engage in harassment based upon sex.
279. By all of the conduct set forth above, Judge Hladio violated Canon 2, Rule 2.3(B) of the New Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges.
Count Five
280. By virtue of all or some of the conduct set forth in Parts A & B, Judge Hladio violated Canon 2, Rule 2.16(B) of the New Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges, effective December 1, 2014.
281. Rule 2.16 is titled "Cooperation and Disciplinary Authorities" and provides in pertinent part:
(B) A magisterial district judge shall not retaliate, directly or indirectly, against a person known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with an investigation of a magisterial district judge or a lawyer."R.G.S.C.M.D.J. Canon 2, Rule 2.16(B)
282. Beginning in 2011, President Judge McBride and Court Administration warned Judge Hladio against the creation of a hostile work environment and retaliatory behavior toward his court clerks because of complaints filed against him.
283. Based upon his numerous meetings with President Judge McBride and Court Administration from 2011-2016, Judge Hladio knew that his court clerks had filed complaints with Court Administration about his conduct in district court.
284. Based on the January 30, 2015 Board Notice of Full Investigation (NOFI), the June 23, 2016 Supplemental NOFI, and the March 10, 2015 and October 26, 2016 Board depositions, Judge Hladio knew that his court clerks had cooperated with the Board's investigation of his conduct.
285. By his December 1, 2014 through 2016 conduct of refusing to speak to N.B. at times, speaking to her in a sarcastic manner at other times, and ignoring her questions about work related matters, Judge Hladio did retaliate, directly or indirectly, against a person known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with an investigation of a magisterial district judge.
286. By his December 1, 2014 through 2016 conduct of yelling, acting in an angry manner, and demonstrating sulking and vindictive behavior toward his court clerks, including N.B., Judge Hladio did retaliate, directly or indirectly, against a person known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with an investigation of a magisterial district judge.
287. By his December 1, 2014 through 2016 conduct of criticizing the work performance of N.B. when speaking with other court clerks, Judge Hladio did retaliate, directly or indirectly, against a person known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with an investigation of a magisterial district judge.
288. By his December 1, 2014 through 2016 conduct of holding back bills that require his approval from N.B., and thereby Interfering with her ability to timely perform her job duties, Judge Hladio did retaliate, directly or indirectly, against a person known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with an investigation of a magisterial district judge
289. By all of the conduct set forth above, Judge Hladio violated Canon 2, Rule 2.16(B) of the New Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges.
Count Six
290. By virtue of some or all of the conduct set forth in Parts A, B & C, Judge Hladio violated Article V, § 17(b) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
291. Article V, § 17(b) provides in pertinent part:
Justices of the peace shall be governed by rules or canons which shall be prescribed by the Supreme Court.PA CONST., art. V, § 17(b).
292. A violation of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges is an automatic derivative violation of Article V, § 17(b).
293. Judge Hladio violated Rules 2A, 4A and 4C of the Old Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges.
294. Judge Hladio violated Rules 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.3(B), 2.4(A), 2.8(B) and 2.16(B) of the New Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges.
295. As a direct result of his violations of all of the Rules set forth above, Judge Hladio violated Article V, § 17(b) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Count Seven
296. By virtue of some or all of the conduct set forth in Part C, Judge Hladio violated the Administration of Justice Clause of Article V, § 18(d)(1) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
297. Article V, § 18(d)(1) provides in pertinent part:
A justice, judge or justice of the peace may be suspended, removed from office or otherwise disciplined for . . . conduct which prejudices the proper administration of justice . . . .PA CONST. art. V, § 18(d)(1).
298. By his conduct of continuing the HACB Landlord-Tenant case against S.S. for 60-days, despite his knowledge of Rule of Civil Procedure for Magisterial District Judges No. 514(c)(1), which requires a judge to issue a judgment at the conclusion of or within three days of the Hearing, Judge Hladio did prejudice the proper administration of justice.
299. By his 2014 through 2016 conduct of failing to impose mandatory statutory fines, as set forth in 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4902(g)(1), when sentencing truckers for driving overweight vehicles over Ambridge bridges in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4902(a), Judge Hladio did prejudice the proper administration of justice.
300. As a result of all the conduct set forth above, Judge Hladio violated the Administration of Justice Clause of Article V, § 18(d)(1) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Count Eight
301. By virtue of some or all of the conduct set forth in Parts A, B & C(1), Judge Hladio violated the Disrepute Clause of Article V, § 18(d)(1) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
302. Article V, § 18(d)(1) provides in pertinent part:
A justice, judge or justice of the peace may be suspended, removed from office or otherwise disciplined for . . . conduct which . . . brings the judicial office into disrepute, whether or not the conduct occurred while acting in a judicial capacity or is prohibited by law . . . .PA CONST. art. V, § 18(d)(1).
303. Judge Hladio engaged in conduct so extreme that it brought disrepute upon the judicial office itself.
304. As a result of all the conduct set forth above, Judge Hladio did violate the Disrepute Clause of Article V, § 18(d)(1) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
WHEREFORE, Andrew M. Hladio, Magisterial District Judge, is subject to disciplinary action pursuant to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Article V, § 18(d)(1).
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT A. GRACI
Chief Counsel December 7, 2016
By: /s/_________
Elizabeth A. Flaherty
Deputy Counsel
Pa. Supreme Court ID No. 205575
Judicial Conduct Board
601 Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 3500
Harrisburg, PA 17106
(717) 234-7911 6 JD 2016 VERIFICATION
I, Elizabeth A. Flaherty, Deputy Counsel to the Judicial Conduct Board, verify that the Judicial Conduct Board found probable cause to file the formal charges contained in the Board Complaint. I understand that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 15 Pa. Cans. Stat. Ann. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT A. GRACI
Chief Counsel December 7, 2016
BY: /s/_________
Elizabeth A. Flaherty
Deputy Counsel
Pa. Supreme Court ID No. 205575
Judicial Conduct Board
Pennsylvania Judicial Center
601 Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 3500
P.O. Box 62525
Harrisburg, PA 17106
(717) 234-7911 6 JD 2016 PROOF OF SERVICE
In compliance with Rule 222(D) of the Court of Judicial Discipline Rules of Procedure, on or about December 7, 2016, a copy of this BOARD COMPLAINT was sent by UPS Overnight Delivery to Magisterial District Judge Hladio at the following address:
Honorable Andrew M. Hladio
1033 Maplewood Avenue
Ambridge, PA 15003
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT A. GRACI
Chief Counsel December 7, 2016
BY: /s/_________
Elizabeth A. Flaherty
Deputy Counsel
Pa. Supreme Court ID No. 205575
Judicial Conduct Board
Pennsylvania Judicial Center
601 Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 3500
P.O. Box 62525
Harrisburg, PA 17106
(717) 234-7911
EXHIBIT B
6 JD 2016
PETITION FOR RELIEF FOR INTERIM SUSPENSION WITH OR WITHOUT PAY
AND NOW, this 7 day of December, 2016 comes the Judicial Conduct Board of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Board), by and through the undersigned counsel, and files this Petition for Relief for Interim Suspension With or Without Pay against the Honorable Andrew M. Hladio pursuant to Article V, § 18(d)(2) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Rule 701 of the Court of Judicial Discipline Rules of Procedure, and Rule 13(A) of the Judicial Conduct Board Rules of Procedure and in support thereof, avers the following:
1. The Pennsylvania Constitution at Article V, § 18(d)(2) provides the Court with the authority to impose interim suspension as follows:
Prior to a hearing, the court may issue an interim order directing suspension, with or without pay, of any justice, judge or justice of the peace against whom formal charges have been filed with the court by the board or against whom has been filed an indictment or information charging a felony. An interim order under this paragraph shall not be considered a final order from which an appeal may be taken.PA CONST. art. V, § 18(d)(2).
2. From January 2010 until the present time, Judge Hladio has served as the magisterial district judge of District Court 36-1-01.
3. Contemporaneously with the filing of this Petition, Board Counsel is filing a Board Complaint against Judge Hladio, alleging eight counts of judicial misconduct. A copy of the Board Complaint is attached hereto, made a part hereof and incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full. See Attachment "1" (Board Complaint).
4. The majority of the allegations against Judge Hladio involve misconduct directed against court staff and persons having business with the court in the form of harassing, demeaning and retaliatory conduct. See Board Complaint, Parts A and B, ¶¶ 9-162.
5. Many of the alleged violations set forth in the Complaint assert workplace violations in that, by his conduct, Judge Hladio failed to ensure adherence to and compliance with the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania Policy on Non-Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity which prohibits sexual harassment and retaliatory conduct and "ensures that all individuals having business with the UJS be treated in a dignified, civil, respectful and non-discriminatory manner." See Board Complaint, Part A, ¶¶ 19, 29, 31 and 32 and Part D, Count 1(A) ¶¶ 211-215 and Count 1B, 222-224.
6. The allegations contained within this Board Complaint against Judge Hladio undermine both public confidence in and the reputation of the judiciary. If Judge Hladio is permitted to continue to perform any judicial duties during the pendency of the Board Complaint, the public's confidence in the judiciary will continue to erode and those having business with or before Judge Hladio, including his employees, may continue to suffer his improper conduct.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Honorable Court enter an interim order suspending Judge Hladio, either with or without pay, pending disposition of the Board Complaint filed against him and to grant such other relief as may be deemed appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT A. GRACI
Chief Counsel DATE: December 7, 2016
By: /s/_________
ELIZABETH A. FLAHERTY
Deputy Counsel
Pa. Supreme Court ID No. 205575
Judicial Conduct Board
Pennsylvania Judicial Center
601 Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 3500
P.O. Box 62525
Harrisburg, PA 17106
(717) 234-7911 6 JD 2016 PROOF OF SERVICE
In compliance with Rule 122(D) of the Court of Judicial Discipline Rules of Procedure, on or about December 7, 2016, a copy of this PETITION FOR RELIEF FOR INTERIM SUSPENSION WITH OR WITHOUT PAY was sent by UPS Overnight Delivery to Magisterial District Judge Hladio at the following address:
Honorable Andrew M. Hladio
1033 Maplewood Avenue
Ambridge, PA 15003
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT A. GRACI
Chief Counsel December 7, 2016
BY: /s/_________
Elizabeth A. Flaherty
Deputy Counsel
Pa. Supreme Court ID No. 205575
Judicial Conduct Board
Pennsylvania Judicial Center
601 Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 3500
P.O. Box 62525
Harrisburg, PA 17106
(717) 234-7911
EXHIBIT C
TO: ANDREW M. HLADIO
You are hereby notified that the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board has determined that there is probable cause to file formal charges against you for conduct proscribed by Article V, § 17(b) and the Disrepute Clause of § 18(d)(1) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Rules 1.2; 2.3(B); 2.8(B) and 2.16(B) of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges. The Board's counsel will present the case in support of the charges before the Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline.
You have an absolute right to be represented by a lawyer in all proceedings before the Court of Judicial Discipline. Your attorney should file an entry of appearance with the Court of Judicial Discipline within fifteen (15) days of service of this Board Complaint in accordance with C.J.D.R.P. No. 110.
You are hereby notified, pursuant to C.J.D.R.P. No. 302(B), that should you elect to file an omnibus motion, that motion should be filed no later than thirty (30) days after the service of this Complaint in accordance with C.J.D.R.P. No. 411.
You are further hereby notified that within thirty (30) days after the service of this Complaint, if no omnibus motion is filed, or within twenty (20) days after the dismissal of all or part of the omnibus motion, you may file an Answer admitting or denying the allegations contained in this Complaint in accordance with C.J.D.R.P. No. 413. Failure to file an Answer shall be deemed a denial of all factual allegations in the Complaint.
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, this 10th day of October, 2017 comes the Judicial Conduct Board of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and files this Board Complaint against the Honorable Andrew M. Hladio, Magisterial District Judge for Magisterial District Court 36-1-01 of Beaver County Pennsylvania, alleging that Judge Hladio has violated the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges and Article V, § § 17(b) and 18(d)(1) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as more specifically delineated herein.
1. Article V, § 18 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania grants to the Board the authority to determine whether there is probable cause to file formal charges against a judicial officer in this Court, and thereafter, to prosecute the case in support of such charges in this Court.
2. From January 2010 through February 17, 2017, Judge Hladio served as the magisterial district judge of District Court 36-1-01.
3. On December 7, 2016, Board counsel filed a Board Complaint, alleging eight counts of judicial misconduct, and a Petition for Interim Suspension against Judge Hladio in this Court. In re Hladio, 6 JD 2016.
4. Following a hearing, on February 17, 2017, this Court entered an Order, suspending Judge Hladio with pay for a period of 90 days and without any effect on his health benefits.
5. On May 4, 2017, this Court issued an Order extending the period of Judge Hladio's suspension with pay until June 20, 2017.
6. By Order dated June 19, 2017, this Court terminated the suspension with pay and permitted Judge Hladio to resume his judicial duties on June 21, 2017.
7. From June 21, 2017 through the present time, Judge Hladio has served as magisterial district judge of District Court 36-1-01.
8. Judge Hladio is an attorney, licensed to practice in Pennsylvania, and continues to maintain a small private practice, specializing in personal injury, wills and estate matters.
9. Based on four Confidential Requests for Investigation at JCB File Nos. 2017-348, 2017-338; 2017-339; and 2017-407, received or initiated after the filing of the Board Complaint pending at 6 JD 2016, the Board investigated the instant matters.
10. As a result of its investigation, and pursuant to Article V, § 18(a)(7) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Board determined that there is probable cause to file formal charges against Judge Hladio in this Court.
11. The alleged judicial misconduct occurred after November 30, 2014 and therefore, the New Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges (R.G.S.C.M.D.J.) are applicable. A. RETALIATION AGAINST BOARD WITNESSES
JCB File No. 2017-348
12. On March 22, 2017, during the period of his interim suspension with pay pursuant to In re Hladio, 6 JD 2016, Judge Hladio wrote a letter on his private law office stationary to the Inspector General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a copy to the Auditor General.
13. In the March 22, 2017 letter, Judge Hladio complained about the work performance of his district court Office Manager Nancy Borkowski and court clerks Joanne Tisak and Linda David, all of whom are referred to in the 6 JD 2016 Board Complaint, and that of Beaver County Deputy District Court Administrator Aileen Bowers, who appeared as a witness for the Board at the February 17, 2017 Suspension Hearing.
14. All of the individuals named in the preceding paragraph, with the exception of Linda David, who is now deceased, will be witnesses for the Board at trial in 6 JD 2016, and information related to each of them was provided to Judge Hladio's counsel, pursuant to the rules of discovery.
15. Judge Hladio admitted that sometime in February 2017, the same month that this Court issued an Order suspending him with pay, he contacted federal authorities and began the process of filing a complaint against the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
16. On June 28, 2017, one week after he returned to the bench following his suspension with pay, Judge Hladio signed a Charge of Discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), under the Americans with Disabilities Act, against the (AOPC).
17. In his EEOC Complaint, Judge Hladio asserted, "I have been subjected to harassment from my staff as well as other staff of the Courts."
18. In his EEOC Complaint, Judge Hladio alleged that Office Manager Nancy Borkowski harassed him in the workplace at district court.
19. In his EEOC Complaint, Judge Hladio alleged that the court staff at the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, where he presides over Central Court, made false allegations against him to the Board.
20. In his EEOC Complaint, Judge Hladio claimed that former Beaver County President Judge John McBride and Deputy District Court Administrator Bowers failed to take corrective measures when he complained about the conduct of the clerks at his district court and the staff of the Court of Common Pleas with whom he interacted at Central Court.
21. All of the individuals whom Judge Hladio named or referred to in the EEOC Complaint will be witnesses for the Board at trial in 6 JD 2016, and information related to each of them was provided to his counsel pursuant to the rules of discovery.
22. On July 25, 2017 and September 5, 2017, Judge Hladio sent complaints via email to Deputy District Court Administrator William Hare and President Judge Richard Mancini which contained false, intemperate, irrelevant statements about individuals who were referenced in the Board Complaint at 6 JD 2016 or were known to have cooperated with the Board's investigation.
23. In his September 5, 2017 email to Deputy District Court Administrator Hare and President Judge Mancini, Judge Hladio reported, without factual basis, that on August 8, 2017, Assistant District Attorney (ADA) Angela Reed Strathman violated Pa.R.P.C. No. 3.8 and retaliated against him in Central Court because of his EEOC disability discrimination claim.
24. In his September 5, 2017 email to Deputy District Court Administrator Hare and President Judge Mancini, Judge Hladio disclosed that he sent an email to the EEOC, claiming that by her August 8, 2017 conduct in Central Court, ADA Reed Strathman retaliated against him because of his EEOC disability discrimination claim.
25. In his September 5, 2017 email to Deputy District Court Administrator Hare and President Judge Mancini, Judge Hladio reported, without factual basis, that on August 7, 2017, Deputy District Court Administrator Aileen Bowers retaliated against him through her husband's law partner, Attorney Kenneth Fawcett, in Central Court, because of his EEOC disability discrimination claim. B. IMPROPER CONDUCT AT DISTRICT COURT
JCB File Nos. 2017-338 & 2017-339
26. Constables Mark Kolakowski and Alex Korol perform work assignments for Judge Hladio's district court.
27. In or about June 2017, Judge Hladio investigated whether the rules governing constables permitted Constable Korol to display political signs in his yard.
28. In or about June 2017, Judge Hladio questioned Constable Korol about his alleged refusal to handle the service of levies for his district court.
29. Judge Hladio threatened to take away all of Constable Korol's civil work for his district court if he refused to handle levies.
30. Constable Korol assured Judge Hladio that he has never refused any assignment from his district court.
31. In or about June 2017, Judge Hladio encouraged Constable Kolakowski to file a complaint with Beaver County President Judge Mancini against Constable Korol and District Court Office Manager Borkowski, alleging that Constable Korol refused to handle levy actions and that Office Manager Borkowski did not know how to manage related levy action paperwork at district court.
32. On June 29, 2017, Judge Hladio yelled at Constable Korol, quoting his earnings at "$250,000" for work performed at his district court.
33. When Constable Korol responded that he earned approximately $250,000 over a twelve-year period for assignments that pay a specific fixed amount of money, Judge Hladio continued to yell at him and demanded to see his Form 1099.
34. On June 29, 2017, Judge Hladio said to Constable Korol, "I'm swinging for everyone. My lawyer said to swing for everyone."
35. On July 6, 2017, when Judge Hladio again questioned Constable Korol about handling levy matters, Constable Korol told him that he never refused to handle them.
36. On July 6, 2017, Constable Korol asked Judge Hladio if he had spoken with President Judge Mancini about political signs displayed in Constable Korol's yard.
37. On July 6, 2017, Judge Hladio became angry and yelled at Constable Korol, demanding to know the names of the people who told him that he spoke with President Judge Mancini about political signs displayed in Constable Korol's yard.
38. Judge Hladio repeatedly threatened to take away Constable Korol's work assignments and to stop using his services. C. IMPROPER CONDUCT AT CENTRAL COURT
JCB File No. 2017-407
39. Judge Hladio presided over Central Court at the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County the week of August 7-11, 2017, a rotating duty among the magisterial district judges in Beaver County.
40. On August 7, 2017, ADA Reed Strathman introduced herself to Judge Hladio and appeared before him in five cases that same day.
41. On August 7, 2011, ADA Angela Reed Strathman appeared before Judge Hladio in a preliminary hearing in Commonwealth v. Solden Moreland at Central Court. Docket No. MJ-36304-CR-0000218-2017. ADA Reed Strathman requested a first continuance on the basis that the charging officer was unable to appear.
42. Judge Hladio denied ADA Reed Strathman's request for a first continuance in the Moreland case and argued with her, stating that the absence of the officer was not a valid reason to grant a continuance and that she should have been better prepared to proceed with her case.
43. On August 7, 2017, ADA Reed Strathman appeared before Judge Hladio at a preliminary hearing in Commonwealth v. John Ours at Central Court. Docket No. MJ-36202-CR-0000127-2017. A bench warrant had been issued for the defendant who had failed to appear for the prior first listing of the case.
44. On August 7, 2017, ADA Reed Strathman requested a one-week continuance in the Ours case because the victim did not appear for the scheduled preliminary hearing.
45. Judge Hladio responded to ADA Reed Strathman's request by stating that the Commonwealth had already received a continuance in the Ours matter.
46. When ADA Reed Strathman stated that the issuance of a bench warrant is not the same as a continuance, Judge Hladio argued with her for approximately five minutes and said that her "youth" was the reason why she did not understand what he was saying to her.
47. After Central Court staff explained to Judge Hladio that a bench warrant was issued in the Ours matter, but no continuance had been granted, Judge Hladio granted ADA Reed Strathman's request for a continuance.
48. On August 7, 2017, ADA Reed Strathman appeared before Judge Hladio in a preliminary hearing in Commonwealth v. Marvin Bradley in Central Court. Docket No. MJ-36201-CR-0000281-2017.
49. The Central Court clerical staff had sent an erroneous notice to Beaver Police Officer Robert Turyon, the officer assigned to the Bradley case, telling him that the case had been continued to September 29, 2017.
50. ADA Reed Strathman called Officer Turyon, explained the mistake on the notice provided to him and requested that he come to court.
51. Attorney Kenneth Fawcett represented the defendant in the Bradley matter. Attorney Fawcett is the law partner of Attorney Chad Bowers, III and husband of Deputy District Court Administrator Bowers. Judge Hladio named Deputy District Court Administrator Bowers in his EEOC complaint as an individual who had violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
52. Attorney Fawcett met with ADA Reed Strathman outside of the courtroom.
53. Attorney Fawcett requested a defense continuance in the Bradley case because of a conflict of interest. ADA Reed Strathman did not object to the request for a continuance.
54. Prior to the arrival of Officer Turyon, Judge Hladio granted the defense continuance in the Bradley case.
55. On August 7, 2017, as ADA Reed Strathman and Officer Turyon were leaving the courtroom, a tipstaff approached them with the message that Judge Hladio requested a copy of the erroneous continuance notice in the Bradley case.
56. Judge Hladio said he needed to see proof of the error on the Bradley continuance notice in order to verify that ADA Reed Strathman was telling him the truth.
57. Prior to August 7, 2017, Judge Hladio had never met ADA Reed Strathman nor presided over any court proceedings in which she had appeared.
58. On August 7, 2017, Judge Hladio spoke to ADA Reed Strathman in an argumentative manner and in a condescending tone of voice.
59. On August 7, 2017, Judge Hladio did not challenge the truthfulness of other attorneys appearing before him or speak to them in an argumentative manner or in a condescending tone of voice.
60. On August 7, 2017, Judge Hladio did not comment on the "youth" of other attorneys.
61. On August 8, 2017, ADA Reed Strathman appeared before Judge Hladio at Central Court in a domestic case, Commonwealth v. David Reno. Docket No. MJ-36102-CR-0000333-2017. The pro se defendant requested a continuance in order to obtain counsel.
62. On August 8, 2017, ADA Reed Strathman objected to the pro se defendant's request for a continuance, stating that he made no effort to obtain counsel. ADA Reed Strathman argued that the victim was inconvenienced, having to miss work and arrange for childcare that day.
63. On August 8, 2017, following her objection to the pro se defendant's request for a continuance, Judge Hladio asked ADA Reed Strathman, "Are you even an attorney? If you were, you should know how important it is to have an attorney present."
64. On August 8, 2017, Judge Hladio lectured ADA Reed Strathman, stating that she must have "no experience," and that her "youth" was the problem, because he had never seen anyone object to a request for a continuance from a defendant who wanted to obtain counsel.
65. On August 8, 2017, Judge Hladio continued to lecture ADA Reed Strathman and said, "You should know that I always grant a continuance on the first listing of a case."
66. On August 8, 2017, after the defendant in the Reno matter had left the courtroom, ADA Reed Strathman stated, "For the record your honor, the Commonwealth was denied a continuance request on a first listing yesterday."
67. After ADA Reed Strathman challenged Judge Hladio's statement about granting a request for a first continuance, Judge Hladio began yelling at her, distinguishing the facts in the Moreland case from those in the Reno case. Judge Hladio told ADA Reed Strathman that he has the authority to do whatever he wants in cases.
68. Judge Hladio told ADA Reed Strathman that he did not need any "guff" from her and yelled at her, accusing her of having no respect for the court.
69. On August 8, 2017, Judge Hladio asked ADA Reed Strathman if she was even an attorney, made condescending remarks that her age was the problem, and yelled at her for approximately five minutes.
70. On August 8, 2017, after confronting ADA Reed Strathman, Judge Hladio requested that District Attorney David Lozier come to the courtroom.
71. When DA Lozier arrived at the courtroom, Judge Hladio told him that he would like to speak with him alone.
72. DA Lozier insisted that the requested meeting take place on the record in the Central Court courtroom and that ADA Reed Strathman be present.
73. The audio recording system at Central Court was turned on and recorded Judge Hladio's August 8, 2017 conversation with DA Lozier and ADA Reed Strathman.
74. The audio recording system remained turned on for the duration of August 8 and throughout the day on August 10-11, 2017, Proper notice pertaining to the audio recording was provided to all persons appearing before Judge Hladio.
75. On August 8, 2017, Judge Hladio spoke in a raised voice during the entire meeting with DA Lozier and ADA Reed Strathman.
76. During the August 8, 2017 meeting with DA Lozier and ADA Reed Strathman, Judge Hladio accused ADA Reed Strathman of having no respect for the court and asked if she was even an attorney.
77. During the August 8, 2017 meeting with DA Lozier and ADA Reed Strathman, Judge Hladio continued to speak in a raised voice, declared that ADA Reed Strathman was inexperienced and stated that she had no idea how a subpoena works. He also made a derogatory remark about her "youth."
78. During the August 8, 2017 meeting, DA Lozier formally introduced ADA Reed Strathman to Judge Hladio and informed him of her professional background, including her experience as a law clerk to Judge John McBride. Judge Hladio responded, "Very good."
79. Former President Judge McBride will be a Board witness at trial in 6 JD 2016. Information pertaining to his involvement in the underlying case was set forth in the Board Complaint, 6 JD 2016, at Paragraph Nos. 26 to 33, and provided to Judge Hladio's counsel pursuant to the rules of discovery.
80. At the conclusion of the August 8, 2017 meeting, Judge Hladio said, "Wait, you were a clerk for Judge McBride?" He then added, "Oh, okay. Now I understand."
81. Later on August 8, 2017, ADA Reed Strathman again appeared before Judge Hladio at Central Court for a preliminary hearing in Commonwealth v. Jada Marie Strayhorn. Docket No. MJ-36101-CR-0001448-2017. The defendant had been arraigned previously, but was in jail in another county. When ADA Reed Strathman asked Judge Hladio how he wanted to proceed, he again asked, "Are you an attorney?" Judge Hladio spoke to ADA Reed Strathman in a condescending manner, asking her if she needed to look at his files to see what she should be doing.
82. When ADA Reed Strathman explained to Judge Hladio that she asked him how he would like to proceed in the Strayhorn case because magisterial district judges, before whom she has appeared, have handled similar issues in different ways, Judge Hladio denied that the defendant had been arraigned.
83. Court Clerk Shannon Preininger showed Judge Hladio the file, which indicated that the defendant had been arraigned and that Judge Hladio was the judge who presided at the preliminary arraignment. Judge Hladio then conducted the hearing in absentia and held the case for court.
84. Central Court was not conducted on August 9, 2017.
85. On Thursday, August 10, 2017, Judge Hladio again presided over Central Court. He refused to turn on the audio recording device before ADA Reed Strathman entered the Central Court courtroom.
86. Upon request from ADA Strathman, Deputy District Court Administrator William Hare intervened and asked Judge Hladio to turn on the digital audio recording device, which Judge Hladio agreed to do.
87. On August 10, 2017, Judge Hladio continued to question ADA Reed Strathman's requests in court proceedings and to speak to her in a condescending manner.
88. On August 10, 2017, Judge Hladio raised his voice when speaking to ADA Reed Strathman and attempted to hand her files so that she could "understand" things.
89. During the week of August 7-11, 2017, Judge Hladio did not yell at, raise his voice, criticize or demonstrate an improper demeanor toward older female attorneys who appeared before him in Central Court.
90. During the week of August 7-11, 2017, Judge Hladio did not comment on the age or level of experience of older female attorneys appearing before him at Central Court, question their truthfulness or query, "Are you an attorney?"
91. During the week of August 7-11, 2017, Judge Hladio did not yell at or raise his voice, criticize or demonstrate an improper demeanor toward young male attorneys appearing before him in Central Court.
92. During the week of August 7-11, 2017, Judge Hladio did not comment on the age or level of experience of young male attorneys appearing before him at Central Court, question their truthfulness or query, "Are you an attorney?"
93. On August 11, 2017, Judge Hladio lectured individuals appearing before him at Central Court about Rule 3.8 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, entitled Special Duties of a Prosecutor.
Rule 3.8 provides, in pertinent part:
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:Pa.R.P.C. No. 3.8(b)
(b) make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to, and the procedure for, obtaining counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel.
94. On August 11, 2017, a criminal defendant appeared before Judge Hladio for a preliminary hearing. Commonwealth v. Branden Xavier Thomas, Docket No. MJ-36304-CR-0000259-2017. The Commonwealth requested a continuance because a witness was not available. The defendant was not represented by counsel.
95. Judge Hladio read aloud Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct (Pa.R.P.C.) No. 3.8(b) to the defendant and then advised him that if a prosecutor violates the Rule, it is a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
96. Pa.R.P.C. No. 3.8(b) was inapplicable under the circumstances because the Commonwealth, the prosecutor, had requested the continuance in the Thomas case.
97. Later that same day on August 11, 2017, Judge Hladio discussed the Thomas matter and the defendant's need for representation with Assistant Public Defender (APD) William Braslawsce. Judge Hladio then read aloud Pa.R.P.C. No. 3.8(b) to APD Braslawsce.
98. Pa.R.P.C. No. 3.8(b) was inapplicable under the circumstances because the Commonwealth, the prosecutor, had requested the continuance in the Thomas case.
99. Later on August 11, 2011, ADA Chad Parks appeared in Central Court before Judge Hladio in two cases:
a. In the first case, Commonwealth v. Yokel, APD Braslawsce requested a defense continuance. Docket No. MJ-36303-CR-0000328-2017. ADA Parks did not object to the request for a defense continuance.
b. In the second case, Commonwealth v. Arbes, the pro se defendant requested a continuance to obtain counsel. Docket No. MJ-36303-CR-0000331-2017. ADA Parks did not object to the defendant's request for a continuance.
100. Judge Hladio stated on the record that ADA Parks was complying with Rule 3.8 and then read the Rule aloud in open court.
101. ADA Parks responded that he was not objecting and the following exchange took place:
ADA Parks: I wasn't objecting to it.
Judge Hladio: Pardon me?
ADA Parks: I was not objecting to it.
Judge Hladio: Are you saying that an objection would be a violation of that rule?
ADA Parks: No
Judge Hladio: Oh, it would not?
ADA Parks: I don't understand what's going on right now.
MDJ Hladio: I'm just reading what the rule is. Sometimes I think that people do not understand that that is the rule.
ADA Parks: Okay.
MDJ Hladio: You might want to tell some of your DAs that or your boss.
ADA Parks: I'm not going to do that.
102. ADA Parks was aware of the August 8, 2017 incident involving ADA Reed Strathman and Judge Hladio and understood that Judge Hladio intended for him to relay the information about Pa.R.P.C. No. 3.8(b) to her.
103. Pa.R.P.C. No. 3.8(b) was inapplicable in the Yokel and Arbes matters because the prosecutor, ADA Parks, did not object to the request for a continuance in either criminal case.
104. On July 25, 2017 and September 5, 2017, Judge Hladio sent emails to Deputy Court Administrator William Hare and President Judge Mancini which contained false, intemperate, irrelevant statements about individuals who have complained about his misconduct and/or who are known to be witnesses for the Board in 6 JD 2017.
105. In the September 5, 2017 email to Deputy District Court Administrator Hare and President Judge Mancini, Judge Hladio claimed that ADA Reed Strathman violated Pa. R.P.C. No. 3.8 and retaliated against him on August 8, 2017 in Central Court because of his disability discrimination claim.
106. In the September 5, 2017 email and at his September 26, 2017 Board deposition, Judge Hladio stated that he sent an email to the EEOC containing supplemental information for his disability discrimination claim, alleging that by her August 8, 2017 conduct in Central Court, ADA Reed Strathman retaliated against him.
107. In his September 5, 2017 email, Judge Hladio claimed that Deputy District Court Administrator Bowers retaliated against him through her husband's law partner, Attorney Fawcett, in Central Court during the week of August 7-11, 2017. Judge Hladio sent the email to Ms. Bower's direct supervisor, President Judge Mancini, and her colleague, Deputy District Court Administrator Hare,
108. At his September 26, 2017 Board deposition, Judge Hladio stated that he is fearful of political connections in Beaver County and thinks that those individuals who have complained about his conduct are conspiring against him.
109. At his September 26, 2017 Board deposition, Judge Hladio admitted that he had no factual basis to support his allegation that individuals who had complained about his misconduct or were witnesses for the Board had conspired with one another or with ADA Reed Strathman to retaliate against him on August 7-11, 2017 in Central Court. D. CHARGES
Count One
Retaliation
110. By virtue of all or some of the conduct set forth in Parts A, B & C, Judge Hladio violated Canon 2, Rule 2.16(B) of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges.
111. Rule 2.16 is titled "Cooperation with Disciplinary Authorities" and provides, in pertinent part:
(B) A magisterial district judge shall not retaliate, directly or indirectly, against a person known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with an investigation of a magisterial district judge or a lawyer."R.G.S.C.M.D.J. Canon 2, Rule 2.16(B)
112. By his March 22, 2017 letter to the Inspector General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a copy to the Auditor General, sent during the period of his suspension with pay from his judicial duties by this Court, Judge Hladio retaliated against District Court Office Manager Borkowski, District Court Clerk Tisak and District Court Clerk David (who is now deceased), all of whom are referenced in the Board Complaint at 6 JD 2016, and are persons known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with the Board's investigation of Judge Hladio's alleged misconduct.
113. By his March 22, 2017 letter to the Inspector General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a copy to the Auditor General, sent during the period of his suspension with pay from his judicial duties by this Court, Judge Hladio retaliated against Deputy District Court Administrator Bowers, who appeared as a Board witness at the February 17, 2017 CJD Suspension Hearing and is a person known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with the Board's investigation of Judge Hladio's alleged misconduct,
114. By his EEOC Complaint, which he initiated in or about February 2017, during the period of his suspension with pay from his judicial duties by this Court, and executed on June 28, 2017, immediately after this Court terminated his suspension and permitted him to return to the bench, Judge Hladio retaliated against Office Manager Borkowski and Central Court staff generally, all of whom are referenced in the Board Complaint at 6 JD 2016, and are persons known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with the Board's investigation of Judge Hladio's alleged misconduct.
115. By his EEOC Complaint, which he initiated in February 2017, during the period of his suspension with pay from his judicial duties by this Court, and executed on June 28, 2017, immediately after this Court terminated his suspension, Judge Hladio retaliated against former Beaver County President Judge McBride and Deputy District Court Administrator Bowers, both of whom are persons known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with the Board's investigation of his alleged misconduct.
116. By his conduct of investigating whether Constable Korol 2017 conduct of displaying political signs in his yard was permissible under the rules governing constables, Judge Hladio retaliated against Constable Korol, a person known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with the Board's investigation of his alleged misconduct.
117. By his conduct of threatening to take away Constable Korol's work assignments and to stop using his constable services, Judge Hladio retaliated against a person known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with the Board's investigation of his alleged misconduct.
118. By his conduct of encouraging Constable Kolakowski to file a complaint with Beaver County President Judge Mancini against Office Manager Borkowski and Constable Korol, Judge Hladio retaliated against persons known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with the Board's investigation of his alleged misconduct.
119. By his conduct of sending the July 25, 2017 and September 5, 2017 emails to Deputy District Court Administrator Hare and President Judge Mancini, which contained false, intemperate, irrelevant statements against witnesses for the Board in 6 JD 2017, Judge Hladio retaliated against persons known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with the Board's investigation of his alleged misconduct.
120. By his September 5, 2017 conduct of reporting by email to Deputy District Court Administrator Hare and President Judge Mancini, without factual basis, that on August 8, 2017, ADA Reed Strathman violated Pa.R.P.C. No. 3.8 and retaliated against him in Central Court, Judge Hladio retaliated against a person known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with the Board's investigation of his alleged misconduct.
121. By his conduct of sending an email to the EEOC, supplementing his disability discrimination claim and alleging that on August 8, 2017, ADA Reed Strathman retaliated against him Central Court, Judge Hladio retaliated against a person known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with the Board's investigation of his alleged misconduct.
122. By his conduct of reporting, without factual basis, that Deputy District Court Administrator Bowers retaliated against him in Central Court during the week of August 7-11, 2017, through her husband's law partner, Attorney Fawcett, as set forth in his September 5, 2017 email to Ms. Bower's supervisor, President Judge Mancini, and Deputy District Court Administrator Hare, Judge Hladio retaliated against a person known or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with the Board's investigation of his alleged misconduct. 123. By all of the conduct set forth above, Judge Hladio violated Canon 2, Rule 2.16(B) of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges.
Count Two
Decorum , Demeanor and Communication
124. By virtue of all of the conduct set forth in Parts B & C, Judge Hladio violated Canon 2, Rule 2.8(B) of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges.
125. Canon 2, Rule 2.8 is titled "Decorum, Demeanor, and Communication in an Official Capacity" and provides, in pertinent part:
(B) A magisterial district judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, witnesses, lawyers, authorized representatives, court staff, court officials, and others with whom the magisterial district judge deals in an official capacity . . . .R.G.S.C.M.D.J. Canon 2, Rule 2.8(B).
126. By his June 29, 2017 conduct of yelling at Constable Korol at district court about the sum total of the money paid to him for constable services rendered over a period of twelve years, and demanding to see his Form 1099, Judge Hladio failed to be patient, dignified and courteous to an individual with whom he deals in an official capacity.
127. By his July 6, 2017 conduct of yelling at Constable Korol at district court about whether he discussed the placement of political signs in Constable Korol's yard with President Judge Mancini, Judge Hladio failed to be patient, dignified and courteous to an individual with whom he deals in an official capacity.
128. By his conduct of yelling at, and demonstrating an angry demeanor toward ADA Reed Strathman in Central Court during the week of August 7-11, 2017, Judge Hladio failed to be patient, dignified and courteous to a lawyer with whom he deals in an official capacity.
129. By his August 7-11, 2017 conduct in Central Court of criticizing ADA Reed Strathman's ability to represent the Commonwealth in criminal proceedings, commenting on her youth, questioning her truthfulness, repeatedly asking if she was an attorney and speaking to her in an argumentative, condescending manner, Judge Hladio failed to be patient, dignified and courteous to a lawyer with whom he deals in an official capacity.
130. By his August 8, 2017 conduct in Central Court of telling ADA Reed Strathman that he did not need any "guff," accusing her of having no respect for the court, declaring that she was inexperienced and had no idea how a subpoena worked, judge Hladio failed to be patient, dignified and courteous to a lawyer with whom he deals in an official capacity.
131. By his April 8, 2017 conduct of speaking in a raised voice during the entire meeting with District Attorney Lozier and ADA Reed Strathman, Judge Hladio failed to be patient, dignified and courteous to lawyers with whom he deals in an official capacity.
132. By all of the conduct set forth above, Judge Hladio violated Canon 2, Rule 2.8(B) of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges.
Count Three
Public Confidence in the Judiciary; Impropriety
133. By virtue of some or all of the conduct set forth in Parts A, B & C, Judge Hladio violated Canon 1, Rule 1.2 of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges, effective December 1, 2014.
134. Canon 1, Rule 1.2 is titled "Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary" and provides:
A magisterial district judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.R.G.S.C.M.D.J. Canon 1, Rule 1.2.
135. By his conduct of submitting the March 22, 2017 letter to the Office of the Inspector General, with a copy to the Inspector General, in which he complained about the conduct of persons known to be witnesses for the Board in 6 JD 2016, Judge Hladio failed to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and failed to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety..
136. By his conduct of filing an EEOC complaint against the AOPC, alleging that persons known to be witnesses for the Board in 6 JD 2016 had discriminated against him because of his disability, Judge Hladio failed to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and failed to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety..
137. By his June 2017 conduct of investigating the propriety of Constable Korol's placement of political signs in his yard during the 2017 Primary Election, Judge Hladio failed to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and failed to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
138. By his conduct of encouraging Constable Kolakowski to file a complaint with President Judge Mancini against Office Manager Borkowski and Constable Korol, pertaining to the processing and service of levy actions, Judge Hladio failed to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and failed to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
139. By his conduct of threatening to take away Constable Korol's work assignments and to stop using his constable services at district court, Judge Hladio failed to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and failed to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
140. By his conduct of sending the July 25, 2017 and September 5, 2017 emails to President Judge Mancini and Deputy District Court Administrator Hare, which contained false, intemperate and irrelevant statements about persons known to be witnesses for the Board in 6 JD 2016, Judge Hladio failed to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and failed to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
141. By his September 5, 2017 conduct of reporting by email to Deputy District Court Administrator Hare and President Judge Mancini, without factual basis, that on August 8, 2017, ADA Reed Strathman violated Pa.R.P.C. No. 3.8 and retaliated against him in Central Court, Judge Hladio failed to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and failed to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
142. By his conduct of sending an email to the EEOC, supplementing his disability discrimination claim and alleging that on August 8, 2017, ADA Reed Strathman retaliated against him Central Court, Judge Hladio failed to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and failed to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
143. By his conduct of reporting, without factual basis, that Deputy District Court Administrator Bowers retaliated against him in Central Court during the week of August 7-11, 2017, through her husband's law partner, Attorney Fawcett, as set forth in his September 5, 2017 email to Ms. Bower's supervisor, President Judge Mancini, and Deputy District Court Administrator Hare, Judge Hladio failed to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and failed to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
144. By his August 7-11, 2017 repetitive conduct of yelling at and demonstrating an angry demeanor toward ADA Reed Strathman, criticizing her ability to represent the Commonwealth in criminal proceedings, commenting on her youth, questioning her truthfulness, asking if she was an attorney, accusing her of having no respect for the court, telling her that he did not need any "guff," declaring that she was inexperienced and had no idea how a subpoena worked, and speaking to her in an argumentative, condescending manner in Central Court, Judge Hladio failed to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and failed to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
145. By his August 11, 2017 conduct at Central Court of reading aloud Pa.R.P.C. No. 3.8(b), and discussing potential violations of the Rule by prosecutors, in the absence of any issues arising under the Rule in criminal proceedings before him, Judge Hladio failed to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and failed to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
146. By all of the conduct set forth above, Judge Hladio violated Canon 1, Rule 1.2 of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges.
Count Four
Bias , Prejudice and Harassment
147. By virtue of some or all of the conduct set forth in Part C, Judge Hladio violated Canon 2, Rule 2.3(B) of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges.
148. Rule 2.3 is titled "Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment" and provides in pertinent part:
(B) A magisterial district judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct . . . manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment, including but not limited to bias, prejudice, or harassment based upon . . . sex, gender . . . age . . . against parties, witnesses, lawyers or othersR.G.S.C.M.D.J. Canon 2, Rule 2.3(B).
149. By his August 7-11, 2017 conduct at Central Court of yelling at, criticizing and demonstrating an improper demeanor toward ADA Reed Strathman, commenting on her youth and inexperience and asking repeatedly if she was an attorney, but refraining from such conduct toward older female attorneys appearing before him, Judge Hladio manifested bias or prejudice against ADA Reed Strathman based on her age.
150. By his August 7-11, 2017 conduct at Central Court of yelling at, criticizing and demonstrating an improper demeanor toward ADA Reed Strathman, commenting on her youth and inexperience and asking repeatedly if she was an attorney, but refraining from such conduct toward young male attorneys appearing before him, Judge Hladio manifested bias or prejudice against Reed Strathman based on her gender,
151. By all of the conduct set forth above, Judge Hladio violated Canon 2, Rule 2.3(B) of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges.
Count Five
152. By virtue of some or all of the conduct set forth in Parts A, B & C, Judge Hladio violated Article V, § 17(b) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
153. Article V, § 17(b) provides in pertinent part:
Justices of the peace shall be governed by rules or canons which shall be prescribed by the Supreme Court.PA CONST., art. V, § 17(b).
154. A violation of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges is an automatic derivative violation of Article V, § 17(b).
155. Judge Hladio violated Rules 1.2; 2.3(B); 2.8(B) and 2.16(B) of the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges.
156. As a direct result of violating all of the Rules set forth above, Judge Hladio violated Article V, § 17(b) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Count Six
157. By virtue of some or all of the conduct set forth in Parts A, B & C, Judge Hladio violated the Disrepute Clause of Article V, § 18(d)(1) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
158. Article V, § 18(d)(1) provides in pertinent part:
A justice, judge or justice of the peace may be suspended, removed from office or otherwise disciplined for . . . conduct which . . . brings the judicial office into disrepute, whether or not the conduct occurred while acting in a judicial capacity or is prohibited by law . . . .PA CONST. art. V, § 18(d)(1).
159. Judge Hladio engaged in conduct so extreme that it brought disrepute upon the judicial office itself.
160. As a result of all the conduct set forth above, Judge Hladio did violate the Disrepute Clause of Article V, § 18(d)(1) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
WHEREFORE, Andrew M. Hladio, Magisterial District Judge, is subject to disciplinary action pursuant to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Article V, § 18(d)(1).
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT A. GRACI
Chief Counsel October 10, 2017
By: /s/_________
Elizabeth A. Flaherty
Deputy Counsel
Pa. Supreme Court ID No. 205575
Judicial Conduct Board
601 Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 3500
Harrisburg, PA 17106
(717) 234-7911 VERIFICATION
I, Elizabeth A. Flaherty, Deputy Counsel to the Judicial Conduct Board, verify that the Judicial Conduct Board found probable cause to file the formal charges contained in the Board Complaint. I understand that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT A. GRACI
Chief Counsel October 10, 2017
BY: /s/_________
Elizabeth A. Flaherty
Deputy Counsel
Pa. Supreme Court ID No. 205575
Judicial Conduct Board
Pennsylvania Judicial Center
601 Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 3500
P.O. Box 62525
Harrisburg, PA 17106
(717) 234-7911 PROOF OF SERVICE
In compliance with Rule 122(D) of the Court of Judicial Discipline Rules of Procedure, on or about October 10, 2017, a copy of this Board Complaint was sent by UPS Overnight Delivery to Heidi F. Eakin, Esquire, counsel to Magisterial District Judge Hladio at the following address:
Heidi F. Eakin, Esquire
Costopoulos, Foster & Fields
831 Market Street
Lemoyne, PA 17404-1518
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT A. GRACI
Chief Counsel October 10, 2017
BY: /s/_________
Elizabeth A. Flaherty
Deputy Counsel
Pa. Supreme Court ID No. 205575
Judicial Conduct Board
Pennsylvania Judicial Center
601 Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 3500
P.O. Box 62525
Harrisburg, PA 17106
(717) 234-7911 PROOF OF SERVICE
In compliance with Rule 122(D) of the Court of Judicial Discipline Rules of Procedure, on or about October 10, 2017, a copy of this Petition for Relief for Interim Suspension With or Without Pay was sent by UPS Overnight Delivery to Heidi F. Eakin, Esquire, counsel to Magisterial District Judge Hladio at the following address:
Heidi F. Eakin, Esquire
Costopoulos, Foster & Fields
831 Market Street
Lemoyne, PA 17404-1518
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT A. GRACI
Chief Counsel October 10, 2017
BY: /s/_________
Elizabeth A. Flaherty
Deputy Counsel
Pa. Supreme Court ID No. 205575
Judicial Conduct Board
Pennsylvania Judicial Center
601 Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 3500
P.O. Box 62525
Harrisburg, PA 17106
(717) 234-7911