In re William I. Maruszczak Magisterial Dist. Judge Magisterial Dist. 38-1-09 38TH Judicial Dist. Montgomery Cnty., 1 JD 2018

• Decision Date: 02 November 2018
• Docket Number: 1 JD 2018
• Parties: IN RE: WILLIAM I. MARUSZCZAK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 38-1-09 38TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
• Court: Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline

IN RE: WILLIAM I. MARUSZCZAK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 38-1-09 38^TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY

1 JD 2018

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE

November 2, 2018

BRIEF OF THE RESPONDENT, JUDGE WILLIAM I. MARUSZCZAK

Samuel C. Stretton, Esquire
Attorney for the Respondent,
William I. Maruszczak
103 South High Street
P.O. Box 3231
West Chester, PA 19381-3231
(610) 696-4243
Attorney I.D. No. 18491

Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

		PAGE
I.	Procedural and Factual History	1
II.	Stipulations of Fact	4
III.	Argument	5

Page 3

TABLE OF CITATIONS

CASES	PAGE
In re Cicchetti, 697 A.2d 297; (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc., 1997)	19
In re DeLeon, 967 A.2d 460; (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc., 2009)	18
In re Hamilton, 932 A.2d 1030; (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc., 2007)	17, 18
In re Jennings, 192 A.3d 372; (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc., 2018)	21
In re Merlo, 58 A.3d 1 (Pa., 2012)	20
In re Nakoski, 742 A.2d 260; (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc., 1999)	16
In re Shaw, 192 A.3d 350; (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc., 2018)	20
In re Smith, 687 A.2d 1229; (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc., 1996)	12, 13
In re Toczydlowski, 853 A.2d 24; (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc., 2004)	16
In re Trkula, 699 A.2d 3; (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc., 1997)	14
In re Zoller, 792 A.2d 34; (Pa. Ct. Jud. Disc., 2002)	15
RULES OF CONDUCT FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES
Rule 1.1	3
Rule 1.2	3, 6, 9, 10, 22
Rule 2.11(A)(1)	3, 10
Rule 4.2	3, 7
Rule 4.2(A)(1)	2, 3, 7, 9, 22

Page 4

PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION
Article V, Section 16	11
Article V, Section 17(b)	3, 10
Article V, Section 18(d)(1)	3, 10, 11

Page 5

I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY

The Respondent, Judge William Maruszczak, is a duly elected Magistrate District Judge in Magisterial District 38-1-09 in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. He has served there as the elected judge since 1997, for twenty-one years.

On February 27, 2018, a complaint for discipline was filed with the Court of Judicial Discipline by the Judicial Conduct Board and docketed at 1 JD 2018. The complaint contained several different sections. The first allegation involved improper campaign conduct. Paragraphs eight through twenty-six involved Judge Maruszczak's disagreement with Marcene Rogovin, who he had believed was a friend, but who had worked against him during the Primary Election Day on May 19, 2015 and the General Election Day on November 4, 2015.

The second allegation involved that of Robert DeFelice, an acquaintance and friend of Judge Maruszczak. This is found at paragraphs twenty-six through sixty-five of the Compliant in Discipline, and in essence, alleges Judge Maruszczak helped Mr. DeFelice fill out a civil complaint and drove him to the District Judge's office where Judge Maruszczak waited outside the Courtroom while Mr. DeFelice had his hearing. The complaint also alleged Judge Maruszczak drove to Mr. DeFelice's polling place on May 19, 2018 where an argument occurred since Judge

Page 6

Maruszczak believed Mr. DeFelice was supporting and working for Judge Maruszczak's opponent in the Primary Election.

The third complaint involved that of Carole Kenney, which is found at paragraphs sixty-six to seventy-seven of the complaint. Ms. Kenney is a Supervisor in Upper Merion Township. This count involved Judge Maruszczak confronting Ms. Kenney when she was campaigning in front of his house for his political opponent. Judge Maruszczak believed she was a friend of his and he expressed his disbelief and dissatisfaction that she would work against him and support his political opponent.

The next section alleged the failure of Judge Maruszczak to recuse himself from cases involving a landlord, Jalil Bami. These allegations are found at paragraphs seventy-eight through eighty-seven of the compliant. Mr. Bami had been a minor contributor to Judge Maruszczak's campaign. Judge Maruszczak has stayed one night with his wife at Mr. Bami's condominium in Cape May. Judge Maruszczak participated in overseeing the mediation of a settlement between Mr. Bami and his girlfriend where the girlfriend's counsel was also present on August 26, 2016. There were also a number of citations issued against Mr. Bami in 2015 and 2016 for false alarms, which were listed before the Respondent, Judge Maruszczak.

Judge Maruszczak, in the complaint, was charged in Count 1 with violating Rule 4.2(A)(1) of the Rules of Conduct for a

Page 7

Magisterial District Judge which alleges a judge shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary. The charges covered the public confrontations between Judge Maruszczak with Ms. Rogovin, Mr. DeFelice and Ms. Kenney.

In Court, 2, Judge Maruszczak was charged with violating Magisterial Rule of Conduct 1.2 concerning promoting confidence in the judiciary. This involved the same public confrontations with Ms. Rogovin, Mr. DeFelice and Ms. Kenney.

The next was Count 3 where Judge Maruszczak was charged with violating Rule 2.11(A)(1) involving disqualification, that a judge should disqualify himself or herself where their impartiality might be questioned. This count involved the cases of Mr. Bami.

Count 4 involved Rule 1.1, requiring compliance with the law. The factual basis for this charge was the violations of Rules 1.2 and 4.2 referenced above.

Judge Maruszczak was charged in Count 5 with violating Article V, Section 17(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which precludes violation of the Code of Judicial and/or Magisterial District Judge conduct.

Judge Maruszczak was also charged in Count 6 with violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Article V, Section 18(d)(1), alleging bringing the judicial office into disrepute.

Page 8

Judge Maruszczak filed a timely Answer to the complaint and in his Answer he denied the violations.

Judge Maruszczak had also filed a request to be placed in the diversionary program utilized by the Court of Judicial Discipline, but that request was denied by the Court.

Subsequently there was a Pre-Trial Conference. The Conference Judge was the Honorable John H. Foradora. By Order dated July 30, 2018, Judge Foradora set a timetable for stipulations to be filed by September 21, 2018. Briefs are to be filed by November 6, 2018. The stipulations are attached and marked as Exhibit "A". As part of the stipulations, as reflected in footnote one, on page 6 of Exhibit "A", the Judicial Conduct Board agreed not to present any evidence or move forward on the Part B allegations in the complaint involving failure to recuse on Mr. Bami's cases, and Count Four involving the unauthorized practice of law.

II. STIPULATIONS OF FACT

Since there was no hearing or evidence presented but only a stipulation, the only findings of fact would be through the Joint Stipulations of Fact in Lieu of Trial. These Joint Stipulations of Fact, which were entered on August 16, 2018 between the Judicial Conduct Board and Judge Maruszczak, are attached and marked as Exhibit "A" to this Brief and incorporated by reference as the agreed to findings of fact.

Page 9

III. ARGUMENT

The Respondent, Judge William Maruszczak, who has served twenty-one years as a District Judge in Montgomery County, has cooperated with the Judicial Conduct Board and entered into a detailed Joint Stipulation (Exhibit "A") concerning his conduct. The first part of the stipulation is the conduct on Election Day of Judge Maruszczak toward Marcene Rogovin.

Judge Maruszczak had a longtime friendship with Ms. Rogovin through her now deceased husband, Charles Rogovin. Judge Maruszczak, who is not a licensed lawyer, but a graduate of Temple School of Law, had become very close friends with Charles Rogovin when Mr. Rogovin was his professor, and they continued to see each other regularly throughout the years (Stipulations 7, 8 10). It was agreed in the stipulation when Judge Maruszczak discovered on May 19, 2015 that Ms. Rogovin was working for his opponent during the Primary Election, Judge Maruszczak went to her polling place (Stipulation 10). At that polling place, he saw that Ms. Rogovin was working as a volunteer for his opponent in the Democratic Party (stipulations 11, 12, 13, 14). Judge Maruszczak raised his voice at the polling place and accused her of supporting his opponent, and indicated "this is my livelihood." (Stipulations 13, 14, 16). Judge Maruszczak then told her he probably was going to call her husband, and in fact, did attempt to telephone her husband but

Page 10

was unsuccessful in reaching him (Stipulations 16, 17, 18). Judge Maruszczak left a voicemail asking her husband to tell Ms. Rogovin to stop campaigning against him (Stipulation 18).

On the General Election Day on November 4, 2015, Judge Maruszczak found out that Ms. Rogovin again was supporting his opponent (Stipulation 19, 20). He left a voicemail on her telephone to his friend, Charles Rogovin, the retired law school professor, complaining that his wife was working against him (Stipulation 20, 22). Judge Maruszczak, in the voicemail, threatened to hold a press conference and reveal Mr. Rogovin's wife covered up an incident involving the D.U.I, arrest of another judge (Stipulation 22).

From a human side, one can understand Judge Maruszczak's anger, disappointment and sense of betrayal when persons whom he thought were close friends now had turned and were working against him. But, from a judicial standpoint as a sitting judge, although he is entitled to voice his dissent quietly to Ms. Rogovin, he cannot do it in a public fashion at a polling place where he raised his voice and accused her of disloyalty. Further, he cannot leave a threatening phone message, which he did after the General Election. As much as one can understand the human aspect of his disappointment, Judge Maruszczak agrees his conduct was not acceptable. Rule 1.2 of the Magisterial District Judge Rules, requires a judge shall act at all times in

Page 11

a manner that...