SCRANTON – A Lackawanna County judge has dismissed litigation against two individuals that a Scranton man said had contributed to an investigation conducted by the state Attorney General’s Office, into his alleged unauthorized practice of law.
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.
Hartman and Chilipko filed to dismiss the case 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 sought the dismissal of the complaint.
UPDATE
Gibbons did in fact throw out the suit on April 16, finding that the no-contact provision reached in the prior civil suit remained active and in force.
“We held argument on April 15, 2021 to address the defendants’ motion to dismiss Pilchesky’s complaint, as well as Pilchesky’s motion to dismiss the defendants’ motion. This is just another attempt by Pilchesky to bully and intimidate the witnesses against him in his criminal case. He is attempting to punish these people because they cooperated with the government and testified against him at his trial. Apparently, Pilchesky believed that he was free to reinstitute his complaint against these defendants once his two-year probationary term ended on Jan. 2, 2021, since he initiated this action on Jan. 5, 2021. Pilchesky is wrong,” Gibbons said.
“The defendants are no less immune today than they were when the previous complaint was dismissed on May 31, 2019. Pilchesky was admonished at argument on April 15, 2021 to leave these people alone. This litigation seeks only to punish these defendants for cooperating with the prosecution and testifying in court. That is not the purpose of litigation. Litigation is meant to redress a civil wrong. Pilchesky’s conviction resulted from his behavior, despite his attempt to blame it on these defendants. They are and will remain immune from liability.”
Accordingly, Gibbons granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, levied an injunction preventing Pilchesky from initiating any further litigation against the defendants and determined that any further attempts at suing or even contacting the defendants will be tantamount to contempt of court.
All parties represented 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