Lehigh Valley Somebody

Monday, August 10, 2009

THE UGLY TRUTH ABOUT BERNARD V. O'HARE III, PART DEUX (2)

Here's the case that compelled the PA Supreme Court to stop Bernie O'Hare from practicing law in Pennsylvania. It was a good call.

George Usry, of Allentown, a black man, was "let go" by Bethlehem Steel in July 1976. Usry believed he was fired for being black. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission looked into it and agreed with Usry. In September 1979, the EEOC issued a "Notice of Right to Sue," finding reasonable cause to believe that Usry's race was indeed a factor in Usry's firing at Bethlehem Steel.

Sadly, George Usry hired Bernard V. O'Hare III to represent him. At the time, O'Hare was a rookie lawyer working at his father's esteemed law firm in Bethlehem, O'Hare & Heitczman. In August 1980, O'Hare III filed a Civil Rights suit on George Usry's behalf in federal court in Philadelphia.

Shortly thereafter, as O'Hare would later glibly enlighten the Disciplinary Board of the PA Supreme Court, O'Hare came to the conclusion that his client George Usry's Civil Rights case "had no merit." Yup. O'Hare never mentioned his revelation to his client George Usry.

O'Hare also didn't inform Mr. Usry of a rather significant "turning point" in Usry's case:

On July 11, 1981, O'Hare settled George Usry's Civil Rights case against Bethlehem Steel for $60.00 (Usry's out-of-pocket costs for filing his lawsuit).

Apparently, defendant Bethlehem Steel agreed whole-heartedly w/ young plaintiff attorney O'Hare's legal opinion that O'Hare's negro client, "Mister" George Usry, had brought a completely meritless case against them, by God, and now someone get our young friend Bernard a cigar please.

Completely "out of the loop" on this back-door raw deal was George Usry.

O'Hare never told Usry that his case (the one w/ "no merit") was over as of July 11, 1981, by decree of Bernard V. O'Hare III.

And "over" really meant over, as O'Hare had entered into a "Settlement Agreement and General Release" with Bethlehem Steel (on Usry's behalf) that contained a stipulation of dismissal "with prejudice" (nice touch), meaning that the ("uppity?" or "well-spoken?") George Usry could never file his EEOC-endorsed case against Bethlehem Steel ever again, boy.

So how did O'Hare do this dirty deal with Bethlehem Steel w/ OUT the knowledge and approval of his client George Usry?

Simple. As concluded by the PA Supreme Court:

"O'Hare forged or caused to be forged the signature of George Usry on the agreement."

Shocked? Wait. For "hot-shot" attorney O'Hare III, the sadistic fun was just getting started.

Was "booze" to blame? You decide ...

Over the next two years, O'Hare shamelessly jerked George Usry around, while covering-up his unauthorized termination and settlement of Usry's lawsuit.

Client Usry phoned his lawyer O'Hare frequently throughout 1982 and 1983 requesting "updates" on his case, and O'Hare never told Usry that he had unilaterally arranged for Usry's case to be "dismissed w/ prejudice" and in favor of their legal opponent, the defendant, Bethlehem Steel.

Instead, in numerous phone calls, O'Hare told Usry that he (O'Hare) was pondering "a series of increasing offers" from Bethlehem Steel for the settlement of Usry's case.

George Usry testified before the Disciplinary Board that he ultimately "accepted" an "offer" from Bethlehem Steel (via O'Hare) of $85,000.00 ...

and on May 12, 1983, O'Hare told Usry that he had received Bethlehem Steel's $85,000.00 check and that he (O'Hare) would hold it for Usry for seven days until it cleared the bank.

O'Hare's next phase strategy was to engage in a "series of misrepresentations about said settlement check" (it's "in the mail?" "my dog ate it?") while jacking up the anxiety level in an increasingly concerned and frustrated George Usry.

O'Hare eventually told Usry that, "Bethlehem Steel had stopped payment on the check," (oopsie).

This of course was a lie too, there never was any check for $85K, and O'Hare had been purposefully lying to George Usry (and seemingly for the "sport" of it) all along.

Booze? Yeah. Right.

Readers, I'm gonna end "Part 2" right here, because the slithery machinations O'Hare attempted in trying to dupe the PA Supreme Court into believing him will likely end up being a separate post of its own down the road.

What's our point w/ all this? We want you to know the ugly truth about Bernard V. O'Hare III too, because O'Hare has never been rehabilitated; O'Hare has never changed his ways; and O'Hare's "ways" still involve a course of evil intent activity that is characterized by, in the conclusions of the PA Supreme Court:

dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, unauthorized activity, forgery, cover-up, conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, illegal conduct, and moral turpitude.

The other O'Hare ... the one w/ the "serious emotional problem" ... the disgraced former prosecutor who delights in persecuting good guys ... w/ evil intent ... is still out there.

P.S. O'Hare pocketed George Usry's $60.00 "settlement." Maybe he spent it on "booze" (wink wink).

Read: Part III: Lucille White

Sunday, August 9, 2009

THE UGLY TRUTH ABOUT BERNARD V. O'HARE III, PART #1

At his once popular blog, Lehigh Valley Ramblings, Bernie O'Hare (left) usually makes light of his unchangeable status as a disgraced ex-lawyer who is barred from practicing law.

He was a "booze hound," O'Hare claims, and he "made some mistakes," but "that was a long time ago." And O'Hare's dismissive and cute self-deprecations always seem to satisfy and amuse the anonymous "regulars" at his blog. If not, O'Hare deletes his interrogator's comments and questions until he or she goes away. And if they persist, O'Hare will then publicly attribute offensive comments to the "high-jacking troll," to discredit and marginalize the person, while not providing any proof that the offensive comments were in fact posted by the accused. Frequently, the wordings of the offensive "anonymous" comments have a distinctly O'Hare-ish familiarity to them. But they work. The questioning "troll" usually gives up and goes away. And Ramblings "regulars" always seem to be okay w/ these O'Hare tactics too.

Some of O'Hare's most loyal regulars include well-known elected officials in Northampton and Lehigh counties who dish insider political (and personal) information (and dirt) w/ O'Hare, which O'Hare then cooperatively spins and twists in their favor (and against their political opponents) at his blog in return for their access.

A once-proud local news institution, The Morning Call "newspaper," launched its "Valley Blogosphere" venture only after soliciting recommendations and blessings from O'Hare who refers to himself as the "Pope" of our local blogosphere. The Express-Times courted O'Hare too with a "blogging alliance" offer of their own, but the ET was rebuffed by O'Hare in favor of the higher circulation Morning Call. Quite the popular and in-demand guy, this Bernard V. O'Hare, III.

Curiously, "booze" isn't mentioned anywhere in the 22 pages Lehigh Valley Somebody obtained recently from the Pittsburgh office of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania [No. 512 Disciplinary Docket No. 2 Disciplinary Board No. 25 DB 84 Attorney Registration 28024], dated January 9, 1986.

The 22 pages Mrs. Dottie and I have examined carefully w/ our legal counsel spell out exactly what O'Hare did and why O'Hare is barred from practicing law.

What's contained in these 22 pages is shocking. But even more shocking is that at the time of his PA Supreme Court Disciplinary Board investigation, O'Hare was involved in another evil intent activity that was arguably far worse than the shocking episode the PA Supreme Court suspended O'Hare's law license for.

Not surprisingly, O'Hare has never applied for reinstatement as a lawyer because he knows they'll never reinstate him. For openers, he'd have to address the arguably far worse 2nd offense. Also, there's a condition on his reinstatement that O'Hare would likely have great difficulty fulfilling:

Reinstatement to be conditioned on the submission of a medical report indicating that Respondent [O'Hare] is emotionally and physically capable of resuming the responsibilities of his profession-- i.e., O'Hare would have to prove he isn't still nutz and extremely dangerous to clients.

Readers, we want you to know the ugly truth about Bernard V. O'Hare III too, because as you will see, O'Hare has never been rehabilitated; O'Hare has never changed his ways; and O'Hare's "ways" still involve a course of evil intent activity that is characterized by, in the conclusions of the PA Supreme Court:

dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, unauthorized activity, forgery, cover-up, conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, illegal conduct, and moral turpitude.

HAPPIER TIMES

Bernard V. O'Hare III was a 3rd generation "hot-shot" lawyer blessed with the silver spoon advantage of starting his career working at his father's law firm, as his father had done before him.

O'Hare's college classmates at Moravian '74 chose him to give the student address and he graduated in the top 10% of his class at Dickinson Law School where his successful and distinguished late father also graduated. Bernard O'Hare Jr. was a 1-term District Attorney of Northampton County and WWII buddies with Kurt Vonnegut.

Shortly before his disgrace and suspension in 1986, and while working as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Scranton, O'Hare III was prosecuting Columbian drug dealers in the Poconos and busting child pornographers. For real. So if O'Hare was a "booze hound" back then as he claims (and which we doubt), the booze certainly wasn't affecting his ability to prosecute bad guys.

But there was "another O'Hare" back then, as there is today also-- an O'Hare who was persecuting good guys w/ evil intent.

This other O'Hare, the one w/ the "serious emotional problem," as described by O'Hare's own lawyer in the PA Supreme Court's Report, was purposefully sabotaging civil litigation involving grieving, tragedy-stricken families. For real.

And while it appears that O'Hare wasn't sabotaging these families for the money (no proof of financial gain on O'Hare's part was ever established), the evil intent activity O'Hare was engaging in was the purposeful screwing of grieving families out of civil settlement monies they were entitled to, and highly deserving of:

nineteen million, eighty-five thousand dollars ($19,085,000.00) to be exact.

In a nutshell, Bernard V. O'Hare III was purposefully further devastating already traumatized and suffering families, by kicking them, real hard, when they were down.

If this doesn't put O'Hare's sadistic Troll Parade blog and his public threats to sabotage Sheena Villa's civil litigation into an eye-opening sharper focus for you, well, we're sure nothing will, and you might as well stop reading right now.

But if you'd like to learn more about the real Bernie O'Hare, the one we've had figured out for over a year now, do keep reading.

Read: Part II: George Usry

THE UGLY TRUTH ABOUT BERNARD V. O'HARE III, PART #1

At his once popular blog, Lehigh Valley Ramblings, Bernie O'Hare (left) usually makes light of his unchangeable status as a disgraced ex-lawyer who is barred from practicing law.

He was a "booze hound," O'Hare claims, and he "made some mistakes," but "that was a long time ago." And O'Hare's dismissive and cute self-deprecations always seem to satisfy and amuse the "regulars" at his blog. If not, O'Hare deletes his interrogator's comments and questions until he or she goes away. And if they persist, O'Hare will then publicly attribute offensive comments to the "high-jacking troll," to discredit and marginalize the person, while not providing any proof that the offensive comments were in fact posted by the accused. Frequently, the wordings of the offensive "anonymous" comments have a distinctly O'Hare-ish familiarity to them. But they work. The questioning "troll" usually gives up and goes away. And Ramblings "regulars" always seem to be okay w/ these O'Hare tactics too.

Some of O'Hare's most loyal "regulars" include well-known elected officials in Northampton and Lehigh counties who dish insider political (and personal) information (and dirt) w/ O'Hare, which O'Hare then cooperatively spins and twists in their favor (and against their political opponents) at his blog in return for their access.

The 22 pages Mrs. Dottie and I have examined carefully w/ our legal counsel spell out exactly what O'Hare did and why O'Hare is barred from practicing law.

dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, unauthorized activity, forgery, cover-up, conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, illegal conduct, and moral turpitude.

HAPPIER TIMES

Bernard V. O'Hare III was a 3rd generation "hot-shot" lawyer blessed with the silver spoon advantage of starting his career working at his father's law firm, as his father had done before him.

But there was "another O'Hare" back then, as there is today also-- an O'Hare who was persecuting good guys w/ evil intent.

nineteen million, eighty-five thousand dollars ($19,085,000.00) to be exact.

In a nutshell, Bernard V. O'Hare III was purposefully further devastating already traumatized and suffering families, by kicking them, real hard, when they were down.

But if you'd like to learn more about the real Bernie O'Hare, the one we've had figured out for over a year now, do keep reading.

Read: Part II: George Usry

Friday, August 7, 2009

Kathleen Parrish Responds

Lehigh County's "Right To Know" Officer Kathleen Parrish got back to me recently on our excellent question regarding Debbie Garlicki's new job in DA Jim Martin's office.

Here's what Kathleen had to say ...

Aug. 3, 2009

Dear Mr. Villa:

Receipt is acknowledged of your letter dated July 20, 2009 and received on July 29, 2009. This is not a request for a record - it is a question.

The Right-To-Know Law requires that requests be for existing records and does not require a public agency to provide just information. 65 P.S. sec. 67.705. Also, a request "should identify or describe the records sought with sufficient specificity to enable the agency to ascertain which records are being requested." 65 P.S. sec. 67.703.

Bill Villa interjects: Readers, Kathleen Parrish could have stopped right there and sent me on my way and she would have been in total compliance w/ Right-To-Know. But Kathleen went farther and volunteered this additional information and I sincerely appreciate that, thank you Kathleen, please continue ...

That having been said, the District Attorney requested another Executive Aide position during the budget process in July 2008. It was approved by the administration and included in the budget submitted to the Commissioners in August 2008. The budget was passed in October 2008. The Executive Aide position was funded as of Jan. 1, 2009 and filled in February 2009.

In accordance with the state's Right-To-Know Law, you have the right to appeal this determination to the state Office of Open Records. The appeal must be made within 15 days of receiving this letter. You can submit an appeal using the appeals form found on http://openrecords.state.pa.us.

Thank you,

Kathleen Parrish

Right-To-Know Officer

Lehigh County

Readers, surely there's no need to appeal Kathleen Parrish's gracious response. Thank you again, Kathleen.

However, we do have another excellent question.

But first, let's re-cap what we now know ...

* Debbie Garlicki lost her longtime job as a Morning Call "newspaper" courthouse beat reporter in the first wave of layoffs there on July 25, 2008, "Black Friday."

* "the District Attorney requested another Executive Aide position during the budget process in July 2008" (i.e., the exact same month, July 2008, when Debbie Garlicki knew that her possible job termination was looming, coincidentally)

* In the additional information she volunteered, Kathleen Parrish did indeed answer our first excellent question regarding whether Debbie Garlicki's position in DA Jim Martin's office existed prior to Garlicki's permanent layoff from The Morning Call "newspaper." It didn't, although at least one other similar position may have existed-- Parrish said that Martin requested "another" Executive Aide position in July 2008. Another position specifically for Debbie Garlicki, possibly?

And this brings us to our next excellent question that I have emailed Kathleen Parrish today and it goes like this:

Hi Kathleen, please send me all records (document copies are fine) that depict the advertisements used to announce the open position of Executive Aide in DA Jim Martin's office that was filled by Debbie Garlicki in February 2009. This would include any/all newspaper classified or display ads, postings on the Lehigh County web site, email announcements of the job opening, flyers that may have been hung in-house at the DA's office or Courthouse, etc. Also, please send me all records that indicate how many people applied for the position that was ultimately awarded to Debbie Garlicki in Feb. '09.

Thank you again for your consideration, Kathleen.

Have a nice weekend.

Best Regards,

Bill Villa

Kathleen Parrish Responds

Lehigh County's "Right To Know" Officer Kathleen Parrish got back to me recently on our excellent question regarding Debbie Garlicki's new job in DA Jim Martin's office.

Here's what Kathleen had to say ...

Aug. 3, 2009

Dear Mr. Villa:

Receipt is acknowledged of your letter dated July 20, 2009 and received on July 29, 2009. This is not a request for a record - it is a question.

Thank you,

Kathleen Parrish

Right-To-Know Officer

Lehigh County

Readers, surely there's no need to appeal Kathleen Parrish's gracious response. Thank you again, Kathleen.

However, we do have another excellent question.

But first, let's re-cap what we now know ...

* Debbie Garlicki lost her longtime job as a Morning Call "newspaper" courthouse beat reporter in the first wave of layoffs there on July 25, 2008, "Black Friday."