Lokuta's Last Shot at Reinstatement

Attorneys for former Luzerne County Judge Ann Lokuta took their last chance to return her to the bench, filing a petitionurging the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule lowers courts -- including the state Supreme Court.

“This really is the last opportunity to get somebody to take a serious look at what happened in Judge Lokuta’s case,” attorney George Michak said.

Lokuta was removed from the bench Dec. 9, 2008, by the state Court of Judicial Discipline, ending a 17-year ca reer. That decision followed several weeks of testimony at a trial prosecuted by the state Judicial Conduct Board (JCB) in which Lokuta was portrayed as a courtroom bully.

Lokuta has fought the decision ever since, insisting she had been the victim of a campaign by former county judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan, who orchestrated her ouster because she had reported their wrongdoings. Ciavarella was convicted on multiple counts of corruption in February. Conahan has pleaded guilty and is awaiting sentencing.

Michak said Tuesday’s filing, officially called a “petition for a writ of certiorari,” urges the nation’s highest court to review the case based on three issues:

• Judge Richard Sprague should have recused himself from Lokuta’s trial. An attorney, Sprague had represented attorney Robert Powell in various dealings, creating a conflict of interest. Powell was co-owner of two private juvenile detention centers at the heart of charges against Ciavarella and Conahan. Michak said a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court ruling “laid out” the circumstances in which “due process requires the judge to recuse himself,” and that Sprague’s situation fits that ruling.

• Lokuta was denied due process because the JCB was allowed to amend its complaint after the trial began. Michak said the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that “once a proceeding like this starts you can’t amend the complaint because the respondent doesn’t have time to prepare a defense.” Michak also noted said that several state supreme courts - including Pennsylvania’s in the Lokuta case - have made rulings that contradict that 2009 decision, and that the U.S. Supreme Court should consider this case as a chance to clarify it’s prior stance.

• The JCB “withheld information from Judge Lokuta during discovery and the trial,” Michak said, “and admitted that certain materials, in particular the investigator’s notes of witness interviews, had been destroyed.” The JCB argued the information must remain confidential under the state Constitution. That conflicts directly with Lokuta’s rights under the U.S. Constitution, Michak said, and he is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve that conflict.

The JCB has 30 days to file a response, though no response is required, Michak said. The Supreme Court would then decide if it will consider the case. Both sides would then submit written and, ultimately, oral arguments.

Full Article and Source:
Lokuta's Reinstatement Bid Final Shot: U.S. High Court Filing

See Also:
Supreme Court Denies Lokuta a Second Hearing

Former Judge Lokuta Waits for Decision on Return to Bench

Ann H. Lokuta answers the telephone at her Dupont home with a gentle reminder for a caller who still addresses her as "Judge Lokuta."

"Call me Annie," the 56-year-old former jurist says in a calm, disarming voice her sharpest critics said they seldom, if ever, heard in her courtroom. "I'm no longer a judge."

The distinction, Lokuta hopes, is temporary.

Two years after her permanent removal from the bench, Lokuta remains confident the state Supreme Court will eventually overturn her sentence and return her to the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas seat she had held since 1991.

Lokuta has prayed for a return to the bench since that dreary day at the state capitol in 2008 when the state Court of Judicial Discipline voted to bar her from judicial office and strip her of her pension.

Lokuta, following protocol even in the most excruciating of moments, stood frozen for more than a minute after the ruling, as the seven-member panel filed from the courtroom - the gilded, mural-lined chamber of the state Supreme Court.

If Lokuta's prayers are heard, if her hopes are realized, the ruling returning her to office will come from the same chamber, or a similar room in Philadelphia, where the high court will sit for a term in the late winter and early spring.

"I trust that if there's a sense of fairness, I will be restored to my former position," Lokuta says, remaining faithful to the legal process even after a Court of Judicial Discipline hearing last November that her attorneys described in court papers as a "sham proceeding" designed to keep her of the bench.

At the hearing, Lokuta and her attorneys argued the corruption that led to federal charges against three judges, a county commissioner and other officials had irreparably tainted her misconduct trial.

The discipline court narrowly rejected the argument, triggering Lokuta's latest in a series of appeals and petitions to the state Supreme Court.

"It might be a longer journey than I anticipated, but I'm just ready to hunker down and continue in my pursuit of this," Lokuta says.

Full Article and Source:
Former Judge Lokuta Waits for Decision on Return to Bench

State Lawyer Chastises Lokuta

Former Luzerne County Judge Ann H. Lokuta's discussion of a confidential 2006 ethics complaint against former President Judge Michael T. Conahan appeared as a "blatant maneuver to muddy the water and manipulate public opinion," an attorney for the state Judicial Conduct Board said Thursday.

The anonymous complaint accused Mr. Conahan of packing the court staff with relatives and political allies, hearing cases involving lawyers with whom he had personal or professional ties and manipulating the assignment of cases to other judges.

Frank Puskas, deputy chief counsel for the conduct board, chastised Ms. Lokuta and her attorney, Ron Santora, for referencing the complaint during a hearing in May and in a court filing last month.

Mr. Puskas included the criticism in a 23-page filing urging a state discipline court to deny Ms. Lokuta a new hearing on the misconduct charges that led to her removal from the bench last December.

Efforts to reach Mr. Santora were unsuccessful Thursday.

Under state law, recently submitted evidence of alleged wrongdoing by several panel witnesses, including Mr. Conahan and his co-defendant, former Judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr., does not merit a new hearing if it is used only to impeach the credibility of a witness, Mr. Puskas said.

Mr. Conahan and Mr. Ciavarella were indicted Wednesday on 48 counts related to their alleged involvement in a kids-for-cash corruption scheme, including racketeering, bribery, extortion and money laundering.

Last month, Ms. Lokuta submitted statements from four witnesses, including three current or former courthouse employees, by Mr. Conahan and Mr. Ciavarella in an attempt to erode their credibility and that of two other witnesses who testified at her misconduct hearing, former prothonotary Jill A. Moran and former Court Administrator William T. Sharkey Sr.

The statements should have been submitted during Ms. Lokuta's misconduct hearing and the witnesses should have testified about their claims, Mr. Puskas said.

Mr. Puskas said Ms. Lokuta's claims Mr. Conahan retaliated against her for going to federal authorities were contradicted by the timing of the federal corruption investigation. The investigation commenced in the summer of 2006, Mr. Puskas said, more than two years after the Judicial Conduct Board receive a complaint against Ms. Lokuta from her former executive secretary.

Full Article and Source:
State Lawyer Chastises Lokuta
*

See also:
Lokuta Files Petition

Lokuta Not Entitled to New Trial

Lokuta sues former judges over removal from bench

Deposed former Luzerne County Judge Ann H. Lokuta, silent for more than 15 months after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected her appeal, re-emerged with a vengeance Wednesday, firing a federal civil rights lawsuit at the colleagues and officials she said conspired to oust her from the bench.

Lokuta, the first woman to sit on the Luzerne County bench, filed the lawsuit in an attempt to reverse a state judicial discipline panel's ruling four years ago that removed her from office, stripped her state-funded medical benefits, life insurance and vested pension, and precluded her from holding future judicial office. Lokuta, 59, also asked for unspecified monetary damages.

Lokuta and her attorneys, George A. Michak and Ronald V. Santora, reiterated in the lawsuit her long-held contention that former county president Judges Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan orchestrated her removal because she cooperated with federal investigators probing their pocketing of $2.8 million in payoffs from the backers of a pair of for-profit detention centers.

Lokuta claimed the former judges testified against her before the state Court of Judicial Discipline to punish her for continuing to speak to federal agents. The former judges, she said, used their influence over courthouse personnel to persuade more than two dozen other witnesses to substantiate allegations Lokuta showed up late for court, berated attorneys and court staff members and misappropriated county resources.

"Lokuta was subject to relentless intimidation and retaliation by (Conahan and Ciavarella), particularly Conahan, as they controlled the Luzerne County Courthouse as their private domain and crushed anyone who failed to follow their directives," the lawsuit said.

Full Article & Source:
Lokuta sues former judges over removal from bench

See Also:
Lokuta's Last Shot at Reinstatement

Supreme Court Denies Former Judge Ann Lokuta a Hearing

Former Luzerne County judge Ann Lokuta finally accepted defeat [10/3/11] when the U.S. Supreme Court denied her a hearing on a petition to overturn her removal from the county bench.

“We had some favorable issues, but it’s a distant reach,” Lokuta said of her request for a hearing before the high court, which included her petition among hundreds it refused to consider in an order issued this morning.

“But I had to do it because I never did the things they said I did,” Lokuta said.

The state Court of Judicial Discipline removed Lokuta from the bench in 2008, finding she mistreated attorneys and court staffers and handed down a decision in favor of a family that had supported her politically.

Lokuta maintained the case against her was orchestrated by former county president judge Michael T. Conahan, who is now serving a 17½-year racketeering conspiracy sentence after pleading guilty to accepting $2.8 million in kickbacks for placing juveniles in two for-profit detention centers.

Lokuta said Conahan wanted to punish her because she gave information to federal agents investigating the kids-for-cash case. He was a witness at her trial.

“I’m glad I was an informant. I paid the price for that,” said Lokuta, who lost her pension rights and is barred from seeking judicial office. “This a major part of my life that has ended.”

Full Article and Source:
U.S. Supreme Court Denies Lokuta a Hearing

Removing "Bully" Judge

A Luzerne County judge described as a bully has been removed from office.

Our second-hand study of the case suggests that Judge Ann H. Lokuta had abused her office to such an extent that the Court of Judicial Discipline's report is "scathing."

So - good. She is off the bench.

What is not good is that the case took more than four years to reach its conclusion. Four years is too long.

Full Article and Source:
Judge's removal OK, but it took too long

A county judge described as a bully on the bench was stripped of her office in the longest and most costly judicial ethics investigation in Pennsylvania history.

The Court of Judicial Discipline also banned Luzerne County Common Pleas Judge Ann H. Lokuta from holding any state judicial office in the future.

Lokuta, who attended the hearing, said she would appeal to the state Supreme Court but declined further comment.

Full Article and Source:
'Bully' Judge Banned From Bench After Record-Setting Investigation

The Court of Judicial Discipline voted 6-1 on Tuesday to remove Lokuta from office based on its findings that her behavior on the bench brought disrepute to the office and prejudiced the administration of justice. Lokuta has 30 days to appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court.

The key issue is whether Lokuta’s seat is truly “vacant” given the possibility that the decision could be overturned on appeal.

Full Article and Source:
Appeal could slow replacing Lokuta

See also:
Lokuta benched

State court bans Lokuta from bench

Ethics board, Sprague rip upstate judge

Luzerne judge vows to fight violations of judicial code

Pa. ethics panel: Judge's behavior 'scandalous'

"Shocking Fraud" in the Lokuta Case

The prosecutors in former Luzerne County Judge Ann H. Lokuta's misconduct case committed a "shocking fraud" by failing to disclose that a key witness against her, former Judge Michael T. Conahan, was the target of a misconduct complaint and a criminal investigation, Lokuta's attorneys said in court papers Friday.

The Judicial Conduct Board, the state agency that investigates and prosecutes charges of judicial misconduct, knew of the allegations against Conahan more than a year before he testified, but never shared the information with her attorneys or a state discipline court, the attorneys said.

The board's prosecutors - Joseph A. Massa Jr. and Frank Puskas - kept the complaint and criminal investigation secret even as Conahan emerged as a "star witness" at Lokuta's misconduct hearing in January 2008, her attorneys said.

Massa and Puskas' handling of the complaint "raises serious questions" about their ethical standards, demonstrates a "lack of candor" to the discipline court, and "calls the integrity of their case into irremediable doubt," Lokuta's attorneys said.

They asked a state discipline court Friday to forego its ongoing deliberations, dismiss Lokuta's misconduct charges and return her to the bench immediately.

Full Article and Source:
Lokuta Says Conduct Board Kept Conahan Allegations Under Wraps

More Information:
Read Lokuta's Filing

See Also:
Wave of Hope for Lokuta

Wave of Hope for Lokuta

Midway through her hearing last Tuesday, former Judge Ann H. Lokuta detected a philosophical shift in the approach of the disciplinary panel now considering whether to reinstate her to the Luzerne County bench.

The usually domineering president judge emeritus of the panel, Richard A. Sprague, deferred questioning to the two other judges who heard Lokuta's misconduct case - Lawrence J. O'Toole and Kelley T.D. Streib.

Their questions appeared to focus more on the culture of corruption in Luzerne County than the misconduct charges levied against Lokuta in 2006.

Separately, all three asked Lokuta what she wanted - what sanction she thought would be suitable given the circumstances of her removal last December, the allegations against her and the allegations against the two former Luzerne County judges who testified against her.

There was a renewed sense of equity and fairness in that Dauphin County courtroom, the same chamber where Lokuta practiced as a young attorney nearly three decades ago.

That shift, from a Court of Judicial Discipline that had given her defeat after defeat since the start of the misconduct process, has given Lokuta hope that she will be reinstated.

Full Article and Source:
Wave of Hope Sparks Lokuta

See Also:
Court to Render Decision on Lokuta Case

"Procedural Issue" in Lokuta Case

A state discipline court left attorneys for former Judge Ann H. Lokuta with two options Monday: refile a brief accusing her prosecutors of keeping a witness' misconduct complaint and criminal investigation secret, or save the allegations for a potential appeal.

Those choices manifested after the state Court of Judicial Discipline volleyed the brief back to Lokuta's attorneys Monday because they had submitted it without the court's "authorization."

The court was acting to enforce a haphazardly applied rule that requires attorneys to obtain the court's permission before making certain filings, Lokuta's attorney, George Michak, said.

Lokuta's attorneys filed their brief last Friday - five weeks after the court began deliberating whether to return Lokuta to the Luzerne County bench.

"It's a procedural issue," Michak said. "It's not a decision on the merits, and it's not a setback by any stretch."

Lokuta and her attorneys will spend "a day or two" considering whether to refile the brief with the necessary permission or use it as ammunition for an appeal if the court denies her reinstatement.

Full Article and Source:
Court: Lokuta Lawyers Not Authorized to Submit Filing

See Also:
Shocking Fraud in Lokuta Case

Upcoming Hearing for Former Judge Ann Lokuta

Former Luzerne County Judge Ann H. Lokuta will have a hearing before the state Court of Judicial Discipline in Harrisburg on Nov. 17 in her ongoing bid to regain her seat on the county bench.

The court removed Lokuta from office in December on charges that she abused lawyers and court staffers and used county employees to perform personal household duties.

She has argued the charges were orchestrated by former president judges Michael T. Conahan and Mark A. Ciavarella Jr., who face federal racketeering charges, in retaliation for her cooperation with federal investigators. The court will hearing arguments on whether it should consider four statements recently submitted to the court by Lokuta in which three current or former courthouse employees and one private citizen made allegations against Conahan and Ciavarella.

Source:
Lokuta to Appear Before Judicial Conduct Board Nov. 17

See Also:
State Lawyer Chastises Lokuta

Lokuta Files Petition

Lokuta Not Entitled to New Trial

Former Judge Ann Lokuta Still Fighting for Justice

Describing former judge Michael Conahan as a “malevolent sociopath who raped the judicial system,” attorneys for former judge Ann Lokuta have once again called upon the state Supreme Court to overturn a disciplinary court’s decision that removed her from office.

In a 78-page legal brief filed Monday, Lokuta contends the state Court of Judicial Discipline committed numerous errors during her misconduct trial, including putting far too much faith in the testimony of Conahan and others she claims he unduly influenced.

Those errors were compounded by prosecutorial misconduct she alleges was committed by attorneys for the Judicial Conduct Board, whom she contends intentionally ignored a misconduct complaint filed against Conahan in order to protect the integrity of his testimony against her.

The brief, filed by attorneys George Michak and Ronald Santora, is the latest legal challenge Lokuta has filed in her contentious, two-year battle to reverse the Court of Judicial Discipline’s December 2008 ruling that ousted her from office.

Full Article and Source:
Former Judge Ann Lokuta Appeals Removal From Office to State Supreme Court

See Also:
Read Lokuta's Appeal

Lokuta Files Petition

Former Luzerne County judge Ann Lokuta has asked the state Supreme Court to take jurisdiction of her case from the Court of Judicial Discipline, alleging the disciplinary court has shown a bias toward her in its rulings.

The petition alleges the disciplinary court has failed to follow the Supreme Court’s directive regarding the standard of review it should apply in reexamining Lokuta’s misconduct case.

It also again challenges the refusal of attorney Richard Sprague, who headed the panel, to recuse himself given his representation of Robert Powell, one of the key figures in the judicial corruption probe.

Lokuta also asks the court to reinstate her salary and benefits pending resolution of the case, arguing the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts has wrongly denied her the compensation.

Full Article and Source:
Lokuta asks high court to take over case

See also:
Lokuta Not Entitled to New Trial

Court to Render Decision on Lokuta Case

Former Judge Ann H. Lokuta stood Tuesday in front of the same state disciplinary panel that removed her from the Luzerne County bench last year, imploring them to reconsider.

She reminded the seven-member Court of Judicial Discipline of the corruption scandal that broke a month after its ruling - the scandal underscored by a 48-count racketeering indictment against two former judges who testified against her.

She told them of the personal hardship of going a year without income, without benefits, and without the one thing she said she cherished more than anything else - putting on the judicial robe and hearing cases.

Near the end of her soliloquy, she pointed to an inscription on a courtroom partition and asked for forgiveness. "You look down here and you see mercy, you see wisdom and you see justice," Lokuta said. "Isn't that the purpose of any sanction, rehabilitation?"

She may have convinced them.

The panel deliberated Lokuta's reinstatement behind closed doors for 15 minutes before its president judge emeritus, Richard A. Sprague, returned alone and announced that the court would adjourn and issue a written opinion.

Full Article and Source:
Court Mulls Lokuta's Return to County Bench

See Also:
Upcoming Hearing for Former Judge Ann Lokuta

Supreme Court Denies Lokuta a Second Hearing

The state Supreme Court has denied former Luzerne County judge Ann Lokuta's request for a reargument in her bid for reinstatement to the county bench.

Lokuta was removed from the bench more than two years ago following a trial before the state Court of Judicial Discipline. The court found she had mistreated court employees and attorneys, repeatedly showed up late for hearings and failed to recuse herself from a case involving a family that supported her politically.

The Supreme Court rejected Lokuta's bid to overturn the discipline court's verdict earlier this year. Her attorneys say she plans an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Source:
Supreme Court Denies Lokuta a Second Hearing

See Also:
Judge Ann Lokuta Loses

Pursuit of Lokuta Helpful to Ciavarella, Conahan?

The state Judicial Conduct Board devoted so much of its limited staff and resources to prosecuting misconduct charges against former Luzerne County judge Ann H. Lokuta, it was ill-equipped to investigate an anonymous complaint against the two ex-judges later accused in a kids-for-cash scandal, a conduct board attorney said.

Attorney Paul H. Titus admitted last week that the board's inaction, compounded by budget constraints and an intense focus on the Lokuta case, missed critical questions about the judges' handling of civil cases and their relationship with an attorney involved in the corruption scandal.

"If you have a prosecutor who is actively pursuing somebody, who thinks they have charges that can remove them (from office), you're going to get quicker reaction," Titus said. "Lokuta was taking all of the time. That's the problem."

Full Article and Source:
Was Conduct Board's Pursuit of Lokuta Helpful to Ciavarella, Conahan

See Also:
Lokuta's Attorneys Say Due Process Ignored

Lokuta's Attorneys Say Due Process Ignored

Attorneys for former Luzerne County Judge Ann H. Lokuta accused a state discipline court of ignoring due process and fundamental fairness when it narrowly refused to hear new testimony in her misconduct case earlier this month, keeping her off the bench.

Those allegations centered on the president judge emeritus of the discipline court, Richard A. Sprague, who has remained on the case despite a conflict of interest with a Luzerne County corruption figure, Lokuta's attorneys said in a petition asking the court to reconsider its 4-3 ruling.

The attorneys, George A. Michak and Ronald V. Santora, renewed their call for Sprague to recuse himself from the case because he previously represented Drums attorney Robert J. Powell, who is accused of paying kickbacks to two former Luzerne County judges.

That relationship has compromised Sprague's ability to conduct a fair and impartial hearing, Michak and Santora said.

Sprague set up "straw arguments" at a November hearing on Lokuta's claim that the two former judges orchestrated her removal because she cooperated with federal investigators, and then, in his Jan. 14 opinion, "knocked them down while expressing incredulity and disdain," Michak and Santora said.

Powell pleaded guilty in July to paying $772,500 to the judges, Michael T. Conahan and Mark A. Ciavarella Jr.

Full Article and Source:
Lokuta Attorneys Say Due Process Ignored

See Also:
Lokuta Vows to Continue to Fight

Lokuta Not Entitled to New Trial

An attorney for the state Judicial Conduct Board said in court papers that former Luzerne County Judge Ann Lokuta is not entitled to a new misconduct trial because none of the “after discovered” evidence she has produced would have resulted in a different outcome.

Francis J. Puskas, deputy chief counsel for the JCB, says the myriad of issues Lokuta raised in a 108-page brief filed last week have little to no relevance in her case, constituting an “everything but the kitchen sink” strategy to overturn the Court of Judicial Discipline’s Dec. 9 order that ousted her from office.

Lokuta is seeking to reopen her case or have the charges against her dismissed based on federal charges that were recently filed against former judges Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella and court administrator William Sharkey.

She contends the charges are proof that there was an ongoing conspiracy within the courthouse, orchestrated by Conahan and Ciavarella to remove her from office because she was a whistleblower who exposed various wrongdoings.

Full Article and Source:
Lokuta request criticized

See also:
Removal of Judge Reconsidered

Lokuta's Motion Denied

Judge Wants New Hearing

Removing "Bully" Judge

Removal of Judge Reconsidered

The state Court of Judicial Discipline will hear legal arguments on May 13 regarding whether its order that removed Luzerne County Judge Ann Lokuta should be modified in light of newly discovered evidence she presented.

The court’s action is in response to a March 25 order by the state Supreme Court that stayed Lokuta’s removal from the bench and directed her seat not be placed on the May primary election ballot.

That order directed the disciplinary court to consider evidence Lokuta presented that tied her case to the ongoing corruption probe of the county judiciary. The court was also directed to consider whether an evidentiary hearing should be held.

Lokuta maintained the witnesses were part of a wide-scale conspiracy orchestrated by former judges Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella, who wanted her gone because she was a whistleblower who exposed various improprieties.

Full Article and Source:
Removal of Lokuta to be reconsidered

See also:
Ruling in Lokuta's Favor

Ex-Chairman of Judical Conduct Board to Testify in Conanan/Ciavarella Hearing

Local auto-parts executive Patrick Judge Sr., former chairman of the state Judicial Conduct Board, will be among the witnesses testifying next month before a state panel probing the kids-for-cash scandal.

The conduct board, charged with investigating and prosecuting allegations of ethical abuses by judges, has come under fire from the panel for failing to investigate allegations against two Luzerne County judges now facing federal racketeering charges. Judge, who shared investments in a Florida condominium and Forty Fort ambulance company with one of the judges, Michael T. Conahan, was a member of the board when some of those allegations were made.

As chairman of the conduct board, Judge voted to proceed to trial with allegations against former county Judge Ann H. Lokuta, who was removed from office in 2008 by the state Supreme Court for mistreating court staffers and attorneys.

Lokuta is seeking reinstatement, arguing the charges against her were orchestrated by Conahan and his co-defendant in the racketeering case, Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. Conahan and Ciavarella, who both testified against Lokuta, are accused of accepting $2.8 million for placing juveniles in two for-profit detention centers.

After voting to proceed with charges against Lokuta, Judge was named to the state Court of Judicial Discipline, which conducted a trial in Lokuta's case. Judge recused himself from the case.

Full Article and Source:
Ex-Conduct Board Head to Testify in Kids-for-Cash Probe

Lokuta Vows to Continue to Fight

Attorneys for former Judge Ann H. Lokuta vowed Tuesday to fight on in their battle to return her to the Luzerne County bench, one day after a state discipline court narrowly refused to hear new testimony in her case.

A 4-3 majority on the state Court of Judicial Discipline rejected Lokuta's arguments that she deserves a new hearing because four witnesses who testified for the prosecution at her trial two years ago were subsequently implicated in a corruption scandal.

Read the Opinion

Full Article and Source:
Lokuta Moves Forward After Court's Split Ruling

See Also:
Court of Judicial Discipline Votes Against Lokuta