SCRANTON – Two individuals who testified at a trial where a Scranton man was convicted of the unauthorized practice of law – and then targeted in a lawsuit by the same man – have countered that his lawsuit is improper and should be dismissed with prejudice.
Joseph Pilchesky of Scranton first filed suit in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas on Jan. 5 versus Sheila Hartman and Mary Chilipko, both of Pittston.
“On Feb. 27, 2013, Pilchesky was charged with the unauthorized practice of law by the Office of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania. On Oct. 16, 2018, the defendants appeared and testified against Pilchesky at his criminal trial on the charge of unauthorized practice of law. The charges were levied against Pilchesky as the result of the defendants’ willing and voluntary participation in a criminal investigation initiated by SA John Farkus of the Office of the Attorney General, as to whether or not Pilchesky was practicing law,” the suit stated.
“The investigation by Farkus was developed upon actions that were seminally initiated by the defendants, which included that the defendants sought out Pilchesky for assistance with their personal and private problems that they couldn’t resolve themselves through conventional or typical resources, and they sought out Pilchesky because they knew he was a highly public and spirited political activist who righted the wrongs of many government officials, supported the little guy and because they knew that he knew the mechanics of certain aspects of law, because his legal battles with government offices were often publicized.”
The plaintiff claimed that the defendants knew he was not an attorney licensed to practice law, but nonetheless engaged in “knowingly private and confidential” discussions with Pilchesky at their solicitation regarding their personal and private issues with the legal system and government – and then signed affidavits with Farkus outlining these discussions, to support his investigation into filing criminal charges against the plaintiff.
“At no time while Farkus was in contact with the defendants had they contacted Pilchesky to give him notice that he was being investigated and that they were cooperating with the investigation,” according to the suit.
“On Oct. 16, 2018, Pilchesky was found guilty by a jury. On Jan. 2, 2019, Pilchesky was placed on probation through the Adult Probation Office of Lackawanna County for two years.”
Pilchesky labeled the defendants as “gullible, stupid, naïve, reckless, irresponsible, negligent and incompetent”, and said that as a result of their alleged conduct, he was put through a six year-long criminal process trial during which he was under the restraints of bail and had to undergo open-heart surgery.
UPDATE
Hartman and Chilipko filed to dismiss the motion on March 22, noting in an attached exhibit that Pilchesky had previously sued them in April 2019 and then, in May 2019, had his original civil case thrown out by Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas Judge James A. Gibbons.
Furthermore, at that time, Gibbons ordered Pilchesky to have no further contact with Hartman and Chilipko moving forward.
“The Commonwealth maintained that Pilchesky was in violation of his probation condition that he not contact any of the witnesses in his case. Pilchesky was in violation of his probation condition that he not contact any of the witnesses in his case. Pilchesky tried to suggest, briefly, that he had not been in contact with Hartman and Chilipko simply by instituting suit against them. We admonished Pilchesky against any further contact with these individuals,” Gibbons’s prior ruling stated.
Due to this stipulation, the defendants are seeking the dismissal of the complaint.
“The plaintiff’s complaint is not legally valid. A witness in a judicial proceeding is absolutely protected against any civil action as premised upon communications that are pertinent and relevant, and made in the course of a judicial processing,” the dismissal motion stated.
For multiple counts of breach of confidence, invasion of privacy, defamation, perjury, unjust enrichment and deprivation of constitutional rights against both defendants, the plaintiff is seeking damages for mental and emotional pain and suffering in excess of $30,000, general damages in excess of $30,000, compensatory damages in excess of $30,000, and any other relief the Court deems appropriate.
All parties are representing themselves in this matter.
Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas case 2021-CV-00042
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com